Just all part of debating.

Apologies if my tone sounded patronising. Handsomely put into perspective by your condescenion.

You ask, “Have you read and understood the paper? Are you in a position to give an informed critique of it?”

Good question, albeit rather patronising. Of course I’ve read the paper. Fortunately, I have institutional access to this journal and can access the whole article online. You also ask, “Are you in a position to give an informed critique of it?”. I think so: I get paid for doing so.

@sarah pointed readers to the paper that can be found here: “http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16182019?dopt=Abstract as an answer to my question:

“…There is a perfectly good scientific rationale for the use of spinal manipulation as part of the package that chiropractors apply in the correction of joint and muscle function.” I’m not convinced. Could you direct me to it?”

The paper doesn’t provide the evidence I requested. First, there’s no control condition, so the same effect may be caused by other interventions or sham interrentions. Second, it may be a chance finding – it was seriously underpowered. And let’s not forget third, no mention of potential conflict of interests: it was conducted by chiropractors and internally funded by Palmer centre for chiropractic research.

I found it a rather nasty little paper to read.

JJM wrote: “The article you cite is in an unreliable source, after reviewing scores of such articles I can safely say it is not worthwhile. If they had useful results they would have published in a good journal.”

Andrew Gilbey wrote: “JJM’s comments about the article Sarah cites seem spot-on.”

Have you read and understood the paper? Are you in a position to give an informed critique of it?

If you are dismissing the paper merely on where it was published, then that I’m afraid is the very definition of prejudice.

Andrew Gilbey’s request was for direction towards a scientific basis for manipulation, not a clinical study.

I guess if there was any good evidence for chiropractic spinal manipulation it would deserve publication n a good journal

JJM provides a very good explanation. Personally, I would not give the time of day to a journal like that.

I’d be interested if you can provide evidence from a journal that has an impact rating.

The article you cite is in an unreliable source, after reviewing scores of such articles I can safely say it is not worthwhile. If they had useful results they would have published in a good journal.

Furthermore, it does not demonstrate correction of joint and muscle function in the only sense that matters- clinically. Rather, they played with somebody’s back and measured a brief, electronic response. It is the nature of chiro “research” to infer significant results from minor, laboratory observations such as those. Still, that is probably the best you can offer. History has shown that the better the research, the less favorable it is to chiro.

Even for low back pain, the only arena in which chiro seemed about as good as all the alternatives, chiro seems to be losing its luster as more research accumulates.

you wanted direction….

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16182019?dopt=Abstract

You wrote, “The quality evidence shows chiropractic to be at least as effective as anything else for the problems that chiropractors spend the massive majority of their time treating.”

We are talking lower back pain? Well isn’t simple exercise equally as good? That’s free and has associated benefits. I also thought physiotherapists are just as good. Arguing it’s no more likly to do harm than other forms of care is a logical fallacy. It’s not clear the claims of some chiropractors actually are being dealt with. I’m certain a good many chiropractors wil never let go the idea of the subluxation.

You also wrote, “There is a perfectly good scientific rationale for the use of spinal manipulation as part of the package that chiroprcators apply in the correction of joint and muscle function.” I’m not convinced. Could you direct me to it?