Hubbry Logo
ChiropracticChiropracticMain
Open search
Chiropractic
Community hub
Chiropractic
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Chiropractic
Chiropractic
from Wikipedia

Chiropractic
Alternative medicine
Chiropractor performing adjustment
A chiropractor performing a vertebral adjustment
ClaimsVertebral subluxation, spinal adjustment, Innate Intelligence
RisksVertebral artery dissection (stroke), compression fracture, death
Related fieldsOsteopathy, vitalism
Original proponentsD. D. Palmer, B. J. Palmer
MeSHD002684

Chiropractic (/ˌkrˈpræktɪk/) is a form of alternative medicine[1] concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially of the spine.[2] The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy but may also include exercises and health and lifestyle counseling.[3] Most who seek chiropractic care do so for low back pain.[4] Chiropractic is well established in the United States, Canada, and Australia,[5] along with other manual-therapy professions such as osteopathy and physical therapy.[6]

Many chiropractors (often known informally as chiros), especially those in the field's early history, have proposed that mechanical disorders affect general health,[2] and that regular manipulation of the spine (spinal adjustment) improves general health. A chiropractor may have a Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) degree and be referred to as "doctor" but is not a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.).[7][8] While many chiropractors view themselves as primary care providers,[9][10] chiropractic clinical training does not meet the requirements for that designation.[2] A small but significant number of chiropractors spread vaccine misinformation, promote unproven dietary supplements, or administer full-spine x-rays.[11]

There is no good evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective in helping manage lower back pain.[12][9] A 2011 critical evaluation of 45 systematic reviews concluded that the data included in the study "fail[ed] to demonstrate convincingly that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition."[13] Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain, but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient.[14] No compelling evidence exists to indicate that maintenance chiropractic care adequately prevents symptoms or diseases.[15]

There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations.[16] It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases.[17] There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of vertebral artery dissection, which can lead to stroke and death, from cervical manipulation.[18] Several deaths have been associated with this technique[17] and it has been suggested that the relationship is causative,[19][20] a claim which is disputed by many chiropractors.[20]

Chiropractic is based on several pseudoscientific ideas.[21] Spiritualist D. D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s,[22] claiming that he had received it from "the other world", from a doctor who had died 50 years previously.[23][24] Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial.[25][26] Its foundation is at odds with evidence-based medicine, and is underpinned by pseudoscientific ideas such as vertebral subluxation and Innate Intelligence.[27] Despite the overwhelming evidence that vaccination is an effective public health intervention, there are significant disagreements among chiropractors over the subject,[28] which has led to negative impacts on both public vaccination and mainstream acceptance of chiropractic.[29] The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966[30] and boycotted it until losing an antitrust case in 1987.[10] Chiropractic has had a strong political base and sustained demand for services. In the last decades of the twentieth century, it gained more legitimacy and greater acceptance among conventional physicians and health plans in the United States.[10] During the COVID-19 pandemic, chiropractic professional associations advised chiropractors to adhere to CDC, WHO, and local health department guidance.[31][32] Despite these recommendations, a small but vocal and influential number of chiropractors spread vaccine misinformation.[11]

Status as fringe healing

[edit]

Chiropractic is not regarded as a mainstream branch of medicine.

Origins in "folk medicine"

[edit]

Chiropractic's origins lie in the folk medicine of bonesetting,[9] and as it evolved it incorporated vitalism, spiritual inspiration and rationalism.[33] Its founder, D. D. Palmer, called it "a science of healing without drugs".[9] Its early philosophy was based on deduction from irrefutable doctrine, which helped distinguish chiropractic from medicine, provided it with legal and political defenses against claims of practicing medicine without a license, and allowed chiropractors to establish themselves as an autonomous profession.[33] This "straight" philosophy, taught to generations of chiropractors, rejects the inferential reasoning of the scientific method,[33] and relies on deductions from vitalistic first principles rather than on the materialism of science.[34] However, most practitioners tend to incorporate scientific research into chiropractic,[33] and most practitioners are "mixers" who attempt to combine the materialistic reductionism of science with the metaphysics of their predecessors and with the holistic paradigm of wellness.[34] A 2008 commentary proposed that chiropractic actively divorce itself from the straight philosophy as part of a campaign to eliminate untestable dogma and engage in critical thinking and evidence-based research.[35]

Although a wide diversity of ideas exist among chiropractors,[33] they share the belief that the spine and health are related in a fundamental way, and that this relationship is mediated through the nervous system.[36] Some chiropractors claim spinal manipulation can have an effect on a variety of ailments such as irritable bowel syndrome and asthma.[37]

"Subluxation" as a Vitalist concept

[edit]

In science-based medicine, the term "subluxation" refers to an incomplete or partial dislocation of a joint, from the Latin luxare for "dislocate".[38][39] Whereas medical doctors use the term exclusively to refer to physical dislocations, Chiropractic founder D. D. Palmer imbued the word subluxation with a metaphysical and philosophical meaning drawn from pseudoscientific traditions such as Vitalism.[40]

Palmer claimed that vertebral subluxations interfered with the body's function and its inborn ability to heal itself.[41] D. D. Palmer repudiated his earlier theory that vertebral subluxations caused pinched nerves in the intervertebral spaces in favor of subluxations causing altered nerve vibration, either too tense or too slack, affecting the tone (health) of the end organ.[40] He qualified this by noting that knowledge of innate intelligence was not essential to the competent practice of chiropractic.[40] This concept was later expanded upon by his son, B. J. Palmer, and was instrumental in providing the legal basis of differentiating chiropractic from conventional medicine.

Vertebral subluxation, a core concept of traditional chiropractic, remains unsubstantiated and largely untested, and a debate about whether to keep it in the chiropractic paradigm has been ongoing for decades.[42] In general, critics of traditional subluxation-based chiropractic (including chiropractors) are skeptical of its clinical value, dogmatic beliefs and metaphysical approach. While straight chiropractic still retains the traditional vitalistic construct espoused by the founders, evidence-based chiropractic suggests that a mechanistic view will allow chiropractic care to become integrated into the wider health care community.[42] This is still a continuing source of debate within the chiropractic profession as well, with some schools of chiropractic still teaching the traditional/straight subluxation-based chiropractic, while others have moved towards an evidence-based chiropractic that rejects metaphysical foundings and limits itself to primarily neuromusculoskeletal conditions.[43][44]

In 2005, the chiropractic subluxation was defined by the World Health Organization as "a lesion or dysfunction in a joint or motion segment in which alignment, movement integrity and/or physiological function are altered, although contact between joint surfaces remains intact.[45] It is essentially a functional entity, which may influence biomechanical and neural integrity."[45] This differs from the medical definition of subluxation as a significant structural displacement, which can be seen with static imaging techniques such as X-rays.[45]

Attorney David Chapman-Smith, Secretary-General of the World Federation of Chiropractic, has stated that "Medical critics have asked how there can be a subluxation if it cannot be seen on X-ray. The answer is that the chiropractic subluxation is essentially a functional entity, not structural, and is therefore no more visible on static X-ray than a limp or headache or any other functional problem."[46] The General Chiropractic Council, the statutory regulatory body for chiropractors in the United Kingdom, states that the chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex "is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease."[47]

As of 2014, the US National Board of Chiropractic Examiners states "The specific focus of chiropractic practice is known as the chiropractic subluxation or joint dysfunction. A subluxation is a health concern that manifests in the skeletal joints, and, through complex anatomical and physiological relationships, affects the nervous system and may lead to reduced function, disability or illness."[48][27]

Pseudoscience versus spinal manipulation therapy

[edit]

While some chiropractors limit their practice to short-term treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, many falsely claim to be able treat myriad other conditions.[49][50] Some dissuade patients from seeking medical care, others have pretended to be qualified to act as a family doctor.[49]

Quackwatch, an alternative medicine watchdog, cautions against seeing chiropractors who:[49][51]

  • Treat young children
  • Discourage immunization
  • Pretend to be a family doctor
  • Take full spine X-rays
  • Promote unproven dietary supplements
  • Are antagonistic to scientific medicine
  • Claim to treat non-musculoskeletal problems

Writing for the Skeptical Inquirer, one physician cautioned against seeing even chiropractors who solely claim to treat musculoskeletal conditions:

I think Spinal Manipulation Therapy (SMT) is a reasonable option for patients to try ... But I could not in good conscience refer a patient to a chiropractor... When chiropractic is effective, what is effective is not 'chiropractic': it is SMT. SMT is also offered by physical therapists, DOs, and others. These are science-based providers ... If I thought a patient might benefit from manipulation, I would rather refer him or her to a science-based provider.[49]

Scope of practice

[edit]
A treatment table at a chiropractic office

Chiropractors emphasize the conservative management of the neuromusculoskeletal system without the use of evidence-based medicines or surgery,[45] with special emphasis on the spine.[2] Back and neck pain are the specialties of chiropractic but many chiropractors treat ailments other than musculoskeletal issues.[9] There is a range of opinions among chiropractors: some believed that treatment should be confined to the spine, or back and neck pain; others disagreed.[52] For example, while one 2009 survey of American chiropractors had found that 73% classified themselves as "back pain/musculoskeletal specialists", the label "back and neck pain specialists" was regarded by 47% of them as a least desirable description in a 2005 international survey.[52] It has been proposed that chiropractors specialize in nonsurgical spine care, instead of attempting to also treat other problems,[35][53] but the more expansive view of chiropractic is still widespread.[54]

Mainstream health care and governmental organizations such as the World Health Organization consider chiropractic to be complementary and alternative medicine (CAM);[1] and a 2008 study reported that 31% of surveyed chiropractors categorized chiropractic as CAM, 27% as integrated medicine, and 12% as mainstream medicine.[55] Many chiropractors believe they are primary care providers,[9][10] including US[56] and UK chiropractors,[57] but the length, breadth, and depth of chiropractic clinical training do not support the requirements to be considered primary care providers,[2] so their role on primary care is limited and disputed.[2][10]

Chiropractic overlaps with several other forms of manual therapy, including massage therapy, osteopathy, physical therapy, and sports medicine.[6][58] In a 2010 article on the history of manipulative therapy, the author opined that "physical therapy emerged and grew alongside osteopathy, chiropractic, and the evolving "scientific" medical profession. However, over the next 100 years, physical therapy, osteopathy, and chiropractic were destined to travel very different paths. In its country of origin, osteopathy would coalesce with the medical profession. Chiropractic would remain autonomous from, and highly competitive with, medicine. Physical therapy, whose roots lay in working alongside and cooperating with medical physicians, continues to do so."[59][needs update]. Osteopathy outside the US remains primarily a manual medical system;[60] physical therapists work alongside and cooperate with mainstream medicine, and osteopathic medicine in the U.S. has merged with the medical profession.[59] Practitioners may distinguish these competing approaches through claims that, compared to other therapists, chiropractors heavily emphasize spinal manipulation, tend to use firmer manipulative techniques, and promote maintenance care; that osteopaths use a wider variety of treatment procedures; and that physical therapists emphasize machinery and exercise.[6]

Chiropractic diagnosis may involve a range of methods including skeletal imaging, observational and tactile assessments, and orthopedic and neurological evaluation.[45] A chiropractor may also refer a patient to an appropriate specialist, or co-manage with another health care provider.[53] Common patient management involves spinal manipulation (SM) and other manual therapies to the joints and soft tissues, rehabilitative exercises, health promotion, electrical modalities, complementary procedures, and lifestyle advice.[3]

A chiropractic adjustment of a horse

A related field, veterinary chiropractic, applies manual therapies to animals and is recognized in many US states,[61] but is not recognized by the American Chiropractic Association as being chiropractic.[62] It remains controversial within certain segments of the veterinary and chiropractic professions.[63]

No single profession "owns" spinal manipulation and there is little consensus as to which profession should administer SM, raising concerns by chiropractors that other medical physicians could "steal" SM procedures from chiropractors.[64] A focus on evidence-based SM research has also raised concerns that the resulting practice guidelines could limit the scope of chiropractic practice to treating backs and necks.[64] Two US states (Washington and Arkansas) prohibit physical therapists from performing SM,[65] some states allow them to do it only if they have completed advanced training in SM, and some states allow only chiropractors to perform SM, or only chiropractors and physicians. Bills to further prohibit non-chiropractors from performing SM are regularly introduced into state legislatures and are opposed by physical therapist organizations.[66]

Treatments

[edit]
A chiropractor performs an adjustment on a patient.

Spinal manipulation, which chiropractors call "spinal adjustment" or "chiropractic adjustment", is the most common treatment used in chiropractic care.[67] Spinal manipulation is a passive manual maneuver during which a three-joint complex is taken past the normal range of movement, but not so far as to dislocate or damage the joint.[68] Its defining factor is a dynamic thrust, which is a sudden force that causes an audible release and attempts to increase a joint's range of motion.[68] High-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM) thrusts have physiological effects that signal neural discharge from paraspinal muscle tissues, depending on duration and amplitude of the thrust are factors of the degree in paraspinal muscle spindles activation.[69] Clinical skill in employing HVLA-SM thrusts depends on the ability of the practitioner to handle the duration and magnitude of the load.[69] More generally, spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) describes techniques where the hands are used to manipulate, massage, mobilize, adjust, stimulate, apply traction to, or otherwise influence the spine and related tissues.[68]

There are several schools of chiropractic adjustive techniques, although most chiropractors mix techniques from several schools. The following adjustive procedures were received by more than 10% of patients of licensed US chiropractors in a 2003 survey:[67] Diversified technique (full-spine manipulation, employing various techniques), extremity adjusting, Activator technique (which uses a spring-loaded tool to deliver precise adjustments to the spine), Thompson Technique (which relies on a drop table and detailed procedural protocols), Gonstead (which emphasizes evaluating the spine along with specific adjustment that avoids rotational vectors), Cox/flexion-distraction (a gentle, low-force adjusting procedure which mixes chiropractic with osteopathic principles and utilizes specialized adjusting tables with movable parts), adjustive instrument, Sacro-Occipital Technique (which models the spine as a torsion bar), Nimmo Receptor-Tonus Technique, applied kinesiology (which emphasises "muscle testing" as a diagnostic tool), and cranial.[70] Chiropractic biophysics technique uses inverse functions of rotations during spinal manipulation.[71] Koren Specific Technique (KST) may use their hands, or they may use an electric device known as an "ArthroStim" for assessment and spinal manipulations.[72] Insurers in the US and UK that cover other chiropractic techniques exclude KST from coverage because they consider it to be "experimental and investigational".[72][73][74][75] Medicine-assisted manipulation, such as manipulation under anesthesia, involves sedation or local anesthetic and is done by a team that includes an anesthesiologist; a 2008 systematic review did not find enough evidence to make recommendations about its use for chronic low back pain.[76]

Lumbar, cervical and thoracic chiropractic spinal manipulation

Many other procedures are used by chiropractors for treating the spine, other joints and tissues, and general health issues. The following procedures were received by more than one-third of patients of licensed US chiropractors in a 2003 survey: Diversified technique (full-spine manipulation; mentioned in previous paragraph), physical fitness/exercise promotion, corrective or therapeutic exercise, ergonomic/postural advice, self-care strategies, activities of daily living, changing risky/unhealthy behaviors, nutritional/dietary recommendations, relaxation/stress reduction recommendations, ice pack/cryotherapy, extremity adjusting (also mentioned in previous paragraph), trigger point therapy, and disease prevention/early screening advice.[67]

A 2010 study describing Belgian chiropractors and their patients found chiropractors in Belgium mostly focus on neuromusculoskeletal complaints in adult patients, with emphasis on the spine.[77] The diversified technique is the most often applied technique at 93%, followed by the Activator mechanical-assisted technique at 41%.[77] A 2009 study assessing chiropractic students giving or receiving spinal manipulations while attending a United States chiropractic college found Diversified, Gonstead, and upper cervical manipulations are frequently used methods.[78]

Practice guidelines

[edit]

Reviews of research studies within the chiropractic community have been used to generate practice guidelines outlining standards that specify which chiropractic treatments are legitimate (i.e. supported by evidence) and conceivably reimbursable under managed care health payment systems.[64] Evidence-based guidelines are supported by one end of an ideological continuum among chiropractors; the other end employs antiscientific reasoning and makes unsubstantiated claims.[2][27][42][79][80] Chiropractic remains at a crossroads, and that in order to progress it would need to embrace science; the promotion by some for it to be a cure-all was both "misguided and irrational".[81] A 2007 survey of Alberta chiropractors found that they do not consistently apply research in practice, which may have resulted from a lack of research education and skills.[82] Specific guidelines concerning the treatment of nonspecific (i.e., unknown cause) low back pain are inconsistent between countries.[83]

Effectiveness

[edit]

Numerous controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with varied results.[9] There is no conclusive evidence that chiropractic manipulative treatment is effective for the treatment of any medical condition, except perhaps for certain kinds of back pain.[9][13]

Generally, the research carried out into the effectiveness of chiropractic has been of poor quality.[84][85] Research published by chiropractors is distinctly biased: reviews of SM for back pain tended to find positive conclusions when authored by chiropractors, while reviews by mainstream authors did not.[9]

There is a wide range of ways to measure treatment outcomes.[86] Chiropractic care benefits from the placebo response,[87] but it is difficult to construct a trustworthy placebo for clinical trials of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT).[88] The efficacy of maintenance care in chiropractic is unknown.[89]

Available evidence covers the following conditions:

  • Low back pain. There is no good evidence chiropractic is effective for helping manage lower back pain.[12]
  • Radiculopathy. A 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis found a statistically significant improvement in overall recovery from sciatica following SM, when compared to usual care, and suggested that SM may be considered.[90] There is moderate quality evidence to support the use of SM for the treatment of acute lumbar radiculopathy[91] and acute lumbar disc herniation with associated radiculopathy.[92] There is low or very low evidence supporting SM for chronic lumbar spine-related extremity symptoms and cervical spine-related extremity symptoms of any duration and no evidence exists for the treatment of thoracic radiculopathy.[91]
  • Whiplash and other neck pain. There is no consensus on the effectiveness of manual therapies for neck pain.[93] A 2013 systematic review found that the data suggests that there are minimal short- and long-term treatment differences when comparing manipulation or mobilization of the cervical spine to physical therapy or exercise for neck pain improvement.[94] A 2013 systematic review found that although there is insufficient evidence that thoracic SM is more effective than other treatments, it is a suitable intervention to treat some patients with non-specific neck pain.[95] A 2011 systematic review found that thoracic SM may offer short-term improvement for the treatment of acute or subacute mechanical neck pain; although the body of literature is still weak.[96] A 2010 Cochrane review found low quality evidence that suggests cervical manipulation may offer better short-term pain relief than a control for neck pain, and moderate evidence that cervical manipulation and mobilization produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction.[97] A 2010 systematic review found low level evidence that suggests chiropractic care improves cervical range of motion and pain in the management of whiplash.[98]
  • Headache. There is no good evidence chiropractic helps with migraine.[12]
  • Extremity conditions. A 2011 systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that the addition of manual mobilizations to an exercise program for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis resulted in better pain relief than a supervised exercise program alone and suggested that manual therapists consider adding manual mobilization to optimize supervised active exercise programs.[99] There is silver level evidence that manual therapy is more effective than exercise for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis, however this evidence could be considered to be inconclusive.[100] There is a small amount of research into the efficacy of chiropractic treatment for upper limbs,[101] limited to low level evidence supporting chiropractic management of shoulder pain[102] and limited or fair evidence supporting chiropractic management of leg conditions.[103]
  • Other. A 2012 systematic review found insufficient low bias evidence to support the use of spinal manipulation as a therapy for the treatment of hypertension.[104] A 2011 systematic review found moderate evidence to support the use of manual therapy for cervicogenic dizziness.[105] There is very weak evidence for chiropractic care for adult scoliosis (curved or rotated spine)[106] and no scientific data for idiopathic adolescent scoliosis.[107] A 2007 systematic review found that few studies of chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal conditions are available, and they are typically not of high quality; it also found that the entire clinical encounter of chiropractic care (as opposed to just SM) provides benefit to patients with cervicogenic dizziness, and that the evidence from reviews is negative, or too weak to draw conclusions, for a wide variety of other nonmusculoskeletal conditions, including ADHD/learning disabilities, dizziness, high blood pressure, and vision conditions.[108] Other reviews have found no evidence of significant benefit for asthma,[109][110] baby colic,[111][112] bedwetting,[113] carpal tunnel syndrome,[114] fibromyalgia,[115] gastrointestinal disorders,[116] kinetic imbalance due to suboccipital strain (KISS) in infants,[111][117] menstrual cramps,[118] insomnia,[119] postmenopausal symptoms,[119] or pelvic and back pain during pregnancy.[120] As there is no evidence of effectiveness or safety for cervical manipulation for baby colic, it is not endorsed.[121]

Safety

[edit]
Chiropractic adjustment on a child

The World Health Organization found chiropractic care in general is safe when employed skillfully and appropriately.[45] There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations.[16] Manipulation is regarded as relatively safe but complications can arise, and it has known adverse effects, risks and contraindications.[45] Absolute contraindications to spinal manipulative therapy are conditions that should not be manipulated; these contraindications include rheumatoid arthritis and conditions known to result in unstable joints.[45] Relative contraindications are conditions where increased risk is acceptable in some situations and where low-force and soft-tissue techniques are treatments of choice; these contraindications include osteoporosis.[45] Although most contraindications apply only to manipulation of the affected region, some neurological signs indicate referral to emergency medical services; these include sudden and severe headache or neck pain unlike that previously experienced.[122] Indirect risks of chiropractic involve delayed or missed diagnoses through consulting a chiropractor.[9]

Spinal manipulation is associated with frequent, mild and temporary adverse effects,[17][122] including new or worsening pain or stiffness in the affected region.[123] They have been estimated to occur in 33% to 61% of patients, and frequently occur within an hour of treatment and disappear within 24 to 48 hours;[16] adverse reactions appear to be more common following manipulation than mobilization.[124] The most frequently stated adverse effects are mild headache, soreness, and briefly elevated pain fatigue.[125] Chiropractic is correlated with a very high incidence of minor adverse effects.[9] Rarely,[45] spinal manipulation, particularly on the upper spine, can also result in complications that can lead to permanent disability or death; these can occur in adults[17] and children.[126] Estimates vary widely for the incidence of these complications,[16] and the actual incidence is unknown, due to high levels of underreporting and to the difficulty of linking manipulation to adverse effects such as stroke, which is a particular concern.[17] Adverse effects are poorly reported in recent studies investigating chiropractic manipulations.[127] A 2016 systematic review concludes that the level of reporting is unsuitable and unacceptable.[128] Reports of serious adverse events have occurred, resulting from spinal manipulation therapy of the lumbopelvic region.[129]

X-rays

[edit]
Quackwatch recommends avoiding chiropractors who use full-body x-ray radiography

The use of X-ray imaging in the case of vertebral subluxation exposes patients to harmful ionizing radiation for no evidentially supported reason.[130][131] The 2008 book Trick or Treatment states "X-rays can reveal neither the subluxations nor the innate intelligence associated with chiropractic philosophy, because they do not exist."[132]

Chiropractors sometimes employ diagnostic imaging techniques such as X-rays and CT scans that rely on ionizing radiation.[133] Although there is no clear evidence to justify the practice, some chiropractors still X-ray a patient several times a year.[132] Practice guidelines aim to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure,[133] which increases cancer risk in proportion to the amount of radiation received.[134] Research suggests that radiology instruction given at chiropractic schools worldwide seem to be evidence-based.[131] Although, there seems to be a disparity between some schools and available evidence regarding the aspect of radiography for patients with acute low back pain without an indication of a serious disease, which may contribute to chiropractic overuse of radiography for low back pain.[131] QuackWatch cautions against seeing chiropractors who do full-body x-rays.[49]

Neck manipulation

[edit]

Estimates for serious adverse events vary from 5 strokes per 100,000 manipulations to 1.46 serious adverse events per 10 million manipulations and 2.68 deaths per 10 million manipulations, though it was determined that there was inadequate data to be conclusive.[16] Several case reports show temporal associations between interventions and potentially serious complications.[135] The published medical literature contains reports of 26 deaths since 1934 following chiropractic manipulations and many more seem to remain unpublished.[20]

Vertebrobasilar artery stroke (VAS) is statistically associated with chiropractic services in persons under 45 years of age, but it is similarly associated with general practitioner services, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions.[135][136] Weak to moderately strong evidence supports causation (as opposed to statistical association) between cervical manipulative therapy (CMT) and VAS.[137] There is insufficient evidence to support a strong association or no association between cervical manipulation and stroke.[18] While the biomechanical evidence is not sufficient to support the statement that CMT causes cervical artery dissection (CD), clinical reports suggest that mechanical forces have a part in a substantial number of CDs and the majority of population controlled studies found an association between CMT and VAS in young people.[138] It is strongly recommended that practitioners consider the plausibility of CD as a symptom, and people can be informed of the association between CD and CMT before administering manipulation of the cervical spine.[138] There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of stroke from cervical manipulation.[18] Many chiropractors state that, the association between chiropractic therapy and vertebral arterial dissection is not proven.[20] However, it has been suggested that the causality between chiropractic cervical manipulation beyond the normal range of motion and vascular accidents is probable[20] or definite.[19] There is very low evidence supporting a small association between internal carotid artery dissection and chiropractic neck manipulation.[139] The incidence of internal carotid artery dissection following cervical spine manipulation is unknown.[140] The literature infrequently reports helpful data to better understand the association between cervical manipulative therapy, cervical artery dissection and stroke.[141] The limited evidence is inconclusive that chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy is not a cause of intracranial hypotension.[142] Cervical intradural disc herniation is very rare following spinal manipulation therapy.[143]

A 2012 systematic review concluded that no accurate assessment of risk-benefit exists for cervical manipulation.[18] A 2010 systematic review stated that there is no good evidence to assume that neck manipulation is an effective treatment for any medical condition and suggested a precautionary principle in healthcare for chiropractic intervention even if a causality with vertebral artery dissection after neck manipulation were merely a remote possibility.[20] The same review concluded that the risk of death from manipulations to the neck outweighs the benefits.[20] Chiropractors have criticized this conclusion, claiming that the author did not evaluate the potential benefits of spinal manipulation.[144] Edzard Ernst stated "This detail was not the subject of my review. I do, however, refer to such evaluations and should add that a report recently commissioned by the General Chiropractic Council did not support many of the outlandish claims made by many chiropractors across the world."[144] A 1999 review of 177 previously reported cases published between 1925 and 1997 in which injuries were attributed to manipulation of the cervical spine (MCS) concluded that "The literature does not demonstrate that the benefits of MCS outweigh the risks." The professions associated with each injury were assessed. Physical therapists (PT) were involved in less than 2% of all cases, with no deaths caused by PTs. Chiropractors were involved in a little more than 60% of all cases, including 32 deaths.[145]

A 2009 review evaluating maintenance chiropractic care found that spinal manipulation is associated with considerable harm and no compelling evidence exists to indicate that it adequately prevents symptoms or diseases, thus the risk-benefit is not evidently favorable.[15]

Cost-effectiveness

[edit]

A 2012 systematic review suggested that the use of spine manipulation in clinical practice is a cost-effective treatment when used alone or in combination with other treatment approaches.[146] A 2011 systematic review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of using spinal manipulation for the treatment of sub-acute or chronic low back pain; the results for acute low back pain were insufficient.[14]

A 2006 systematic cost-effectiveness review found that the reported cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation in the United Kingdom compared favorably with other treatments for back pain, but that reports were based on data from clinical trials without placebo controls and that the specific cost-effectiveness of the treatment (as opposed to non-specific effects) remains uncertain.[147] A 2005 American systematic review of economic evaluations of conservative treatments for low back pain found that significant quality problems in available studies meant that definite conclusions could not be drawn about the most cost-effective intervention.[148] The cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care is unknown.[89][non-primary source needed]

Analysis of a clinical and cost utilization data from the years 2003 to 2005 by an integrative medicine independent physician association (IPA) which looked the chiropractic services utilization found that the clinical and cost utilization of chiropractic services based on 70,274 member-months over a 7-year period decreased patient costs associate with the following use of services by 60% for in-hospital admissions, 59% for hospital days, 62% for outpatient surgeries and procedures, and 85% for pharmaceutical costs when compared with conventional medicine (visit to a medical doctor primary care provider) IPA performance for the same health maintenance organization product in the same geography and time frame.[149]

Education, licensing, and regulation

[edit]

Requirements vary between countries. In the U.S. chiropractors obtain a non-medical accredited diploma in the field of chiropractic.[150] Chiropractic education in the U.S. has been criticized for failing to meet generally accepted standards of evidence-based medicine.[151] The curriculum content of North American chiropractic and medical colleges with regard to basic and clinical sciences has little similarity, both in the kinds of subjects offered and in the time assigned to each subject.[152] Accredited chiropractic programs in the U.S. require that applicants have 90 semester hours of undergraduate education with a grade point average of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale. Many programs require at least three years of undergraduate education, and more are requiring a bachelor's degree.[153] Canada requires a minimum three years of undergraduate education for applicants, and at least 4200 instructional hours (or the equivalent) of full-time chiropractic education for matriculation through an accredited chiropractic program.[154] Graduates of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) are formally recognized to have at least 7–8 years of university level education.[155][156] The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines suggest three major full-time educational paths culminating in either a DC, DCM, BSc, or MSc degree. Besides the full-time paths, they also suggest a conversion program for people with other health care education and limited training programs for regions where no legislation governs chiropractic.[45]

Upon graduation, there may be a requirement to pass national, state, or provincial board examinations before being licensed to practice in a particular jurisdiction.[157][158] Depending on the location, continuing education may be required to renew these licenses.[159][160] Specialty training is available through part-time postgraduate education programs such as chiropractic orthopedics and sports chiropractic, and through full-time residency programs such as radiology or orthopedics.[161]

In the U.S., chiropractic schools are accredited through the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) while the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) is the statutory governmental body responsible for the regulation of chiropractic in the UK.[162][163] The U.S. CCE requires a mixing curriculum, which means a straight-educated chiropractor may not be eligible for licensing in states requiring CCE accreditation.[164] CCEs in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Europe have joined to form CCE-International (CCE-I) as a model of accreditation standards with the goal of having credentials portable internationally.[165] Today, there are 18 accredited Doctor of Chiropractic programs in the U.S.,[166] 2 in Canada,[167] 6 in Australasia,[168] and 5 in Europe.[169] All but one of the chiropractic colleges in the U.S. are privately funded, but in several other countries they are in government-sponsored universities and colleges.[25] Of the two chiropractic colleges in Canada, one is publicly funded (UQTR) and one is privately funded (CMCC). In 2005, CMCC was granted the privilege of offering a professional health care degree under the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, which sets the program within the hierarchy of education in Canada as comparable to that of other primary contact health care professions such as medicine, dentistry and optometry.[155][156]

Regulatory colleges and chiropractic boards in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Australia are responsible for protecting the public, standards of practice, disciplinary issues, quality assurance and maintenance of competency.[170][171]

Chiropractors often argue that this education is as good as or better than medical physicians', but most chiropractic training is confined to classrooms with much time spent learning theory, adjustment, and marketing.[164] The fourth year of chiropractic education persistently showed the highest stress levels.[172] Every student, irrespective of year, experienced different ranges of stress when studying.[172] The chiropractic leaders and colleges have had internal struggles.[173] Rather than cooperation, there has been infighting between different factions.[173] A number of actions were posturing due to the confidential nature of the chiropractic colleges in an attempt to enroll students.[173][clarification needed]

In 2024, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported on the high debt burden of students who pursued degrees in alternative medicine. Ten different chiropractic programs were ranked among the 47 US graduate programs with highest debt to earnings ratios.[174][175] Analyses by Quackwatch and the Sunlight Foundation found high rates of default on Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) student loans used for chiropractic programs.[176][177][178] Among health professionals who were listed as in default on HEAL loans in 2012, 53% were chiropractors.[178]

Ethics

[edit]

The chiropractic oath is a modern variation of the classical Hippocratic Oath historically taken by physicians and other healthcare professionals swearing to practice their professions ethically.[179] The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) has an ethical code "based upon the acknowledgement that the social contract dictates the profession's responsibilities to the patient, the public, and the profession; and upholds the fundamental principle that the paramount purpose of the chiropractic doctor's professional services shall be to benefit the patient."[180] The International Chiropractor's Association (ICA) also has a set of professional canons.[181]

A 2008 commentary proposed that the chiropractic profession actively regulate itself to combat abuse, fraud, and quackery, which are more prevalent in chiropractic than in other health care professions, violating the social contract between patients and physicians.[35] According to a 2015 Gallup poll of U.S. adults, the perception of chiropractors is generally favorable; two-thirds of American adults agree that chiropractors have their patient's best interest in mind and more than half also agree that most chiropractors are trustworthy. Less than 10% of US adults disagreed with the statement that chiropractors were trustworthy.[182][183]

The charity Sense about Science launched a campaign to draw attention to the BCA legal case against science writer Simon Singh.[184] In 2009, a number of organizations and public figures signed a statement entitled "The law has no place in scientific disputes".[185]

Chiropractors, especially in America, have a reputation for unnecessarily treating patients.[132] In many circumstances the focus seems to be put on economics instead of health care.[132] Sustained chiropractic care is promoted as a preventive tool, but unnecessary manipulation could possibly present a risk to patients.[9] Some chiropractors are concerned by the routine unjustified claims chiropractors have made.[9] A 2010 analysis of chiropractic websites found the majority of chiropractors and their associations made claims of effectiveness not supported by scientific evidence, while 28% of chiropractor websites advocate lower back pain care, which has some sound evidence.[186]

The US Office of the Inspector General (OIG) estimated that for calendar year 2013, 82% of payments to chiropractors under Medicare Part B, a total of $359 million, did not comply with Medicare requirements.[187] There have been at least 15 OIG reports about chiropractic billing irregularities since 1986.[187]

In 2009, a backlash to the libel suit filed by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) against Simon Singh inspired the filing of formal complaints of false advertising against more than 500 individual chiropractors within one 24-hour period,[188][189] prompting the McTimoney Chiropractic Association to write to its members advising them to remove leaflets that make claims about whiplash and colic from their practice, to be wary of new patients and telephone inquiries, and telling their members: "If you have a website, take it down NOW" and "Finally, we strongly suggest you do NOT discuss this with others, especially patients."[188] An editorial in Nature suggested that the BCA may have been trying to suppress debate and that this use of English libel law was a burden on the right to freedom of expression, which is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.[190] The libel case ended with the BCA withdrawing its suit in 2010.[191][192]

Reception

[edit]

Chiropractic is established in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, and is present to a lesser extent in many other countries.[5] It is viewed as a marginal and non-clinically–proven attempt at complementary and alternative medicine, which has not integrated into mainstream medicine.[52]

Australia

[edit]

In Australia, there are approximately 2488 chiropractors, or one chiropractor for every 7980 people.[193] Most private health insurance funds in Australia cover chiropractic care, and the federal government funds chiropractic care when the patient is referred by a medical practitioner.[194] In 2014, the chiropractic profession had a registered workforce of 4,684 practitioners in Australia represented by two major organizations – the Chiropractors' Association of Australia (CAA) and the Chiropractic and Osteopathic College of Australasia (COCA).[195] Annual expenditure on chiropractic care (alone or combined with osteopathy) in Australia is estimated to be between AUD$750–988 million with musculoskeletal complaints such as back and neck pain making up the bulk of consultations; and proportional expenditure is similar to that found in other countries.[195] While Medicare (the Australian publicly funded universal health care system) coverage of chiropractic services is limited to only those directed by a medical referral to assist chronic disease management, most private health insurers in Australia do provide partial reimbursement for a wider range of chiropractic services in addition to limited third party payments for workers compensation and motor vehicle accidents.[195]

Of the 2,005 chiropractors who participated in a 2015 survey, 62.4% were male and the average age was 42.1 (SD = 12.1) years.[195] Nearly all chiropractors (97.1%) had a bachelor's degree or higher, with the majority of chiropractor's highest professional qualification being a bachelor or double bachelor's degree (34.6%), followed by a master's degree (32.7%), Doctor of Chiropractic (28.9%) or PhD (0.9%).[195] Only a small number of chiropractor's highest professional qualification was a diploma (2.1%) or advanced diploma (0.8%).[195]

Germany

[edit]

In Germany, chiropractic may be offered by medical doctors and alternative practitioners. Chiropractors qualified abroad must obtain a German non-medical practitioner license. Authorities have routinely required a comprehensive knowledge test for this, but in the recent past, some administrative courts have ruled that training abroad should be recognised.[196]

Switzerland

[edit]

In Switzerland, only trained medical professionals are allowed to offer chiropractic.[197] Since 1995, chiropractors have been licensed to prescribe a limited set of pharmaceuticals, which were expanded in 2018.[198] A 2010 survey found that 72% of Swiss chiropractors considered their ability to prescribe nonprescription medication as an advantage for chiropractic treatment.[199]

There are approximately 300 chiropractors in Switzerland.[200]

United Kingdom

[edit]

Chiropractic is available on the National Health Service in some areas, such as Cornwall, where the treatment is only available for neck or back pain.[201]

A 2010 study by questionnaire presented to UK chiropractors indicated only 45% of chiropractors disclosed to patients the serious risk associated with manipulation of the cervical spine and that 46% believed there was possibility patients would refuse treatment if the risks were correctly explained. However 80% acknowledged the ethical/moral responsibility to disclose risk to patients.[202]

United States and Canada

[edit]

In 2025, the American Chiropractic Association reported that 70,000 practitioners were active in the United States.[203] The percentage of the population that utilizes chiropractic care at any given time generally falls into a range from 6% to 12% in the U.S. and Canada,[204] with a global high of 20% in Alberta in 2006.[205] In 2008, chiropractors were reported to be the most common CAM providers for children and adolescents, these patients representing up to 14% of all visits to chiropractors.[206] A 2022 report found 11% of Americans visit a chiropractor.[207][better source needed][full citation needed]

In 2002–03, the majority of those who sought chiropractic did so for relief from back and neck pain and other neuromusculoskeletal complaints;[4] most do so specifically for low back pain.[4][204] The majority of U.S. chiropractors participate in some form of managed care.[10] Although the majority of U.S. chiropractors view themselves as specialists in neuromusculoskeletal conditions, many also consider chiropractic as a type of primary care.[10] In the majority of cases, the care that chiropractors and physicians provide divides the market, however for some, their care is complementary.[10]

In the U.S., chiropractors perform over 90% of all manipulative treatments.[208] Satisfaction rates are typically higher for chiropractic care compared to medical care, with a 1998 U.S. survey reporting 83% of respondents satisfied or very satisfied with their care; quality of communication seems to be a consistent predictor of patient satisfaction with chiropractors.[209]

Utilization of chiropractic care is sensitive to the costs incurred by the co-payment by the patient.[1] The use of chiropractic declined from 9.9% of U.S. adults in 1997 to 7.4% in 2002; this was the largest relative decrease among CAM professions, which overall had a stable use rate.[210] As of 2007 7% of the U.S. population is being reached by chiropractic.[211] They were the third largest medical profession in the US in 2002, following physicians and dentists.[212] Employment of U.S. chiropractors was expected to increase 14% between 2006 and 2016, faster than the average for all occupations.[213]

Since 1972, chiropractic treatment of the spine has been covered by Medicare, the US federal health insurance program in the United States.[214] In 1974 the United States Commissioner of Education officially listed the Council on Chiropractic Education as a "Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agency".[215][216] This allowed for eligibility for federal education and research grants, student eligibility for federal loans, and gave increased legitimacy for chiropractic as a profession overall.[215] In 1980, the American Medical Association revised its code of ethics, allowing members to provide referrals to chiropractors.[217]

Modernly, chiropractors often work in collaboration with primary care physicians and other medical specialists; the American College of Physicians recommends spinal manipulation therapy as an alternative to pain-relieving drugs for low back pain.[218] Most states require insurers to cover chiropractic care, and most HMOs cover these services.[206]

Chiropractors are not normally licensed to write medical prescriptions or perform major surgery in the United States[219] (although New Mexico has become the first US state to allow "advanced practice" trained chiropractors to prescribe certain medications[220][221]). In the US, their scope of practice varies by state, based on inconsistent views of chiropractic care: some states, such as Iowa, broadly allow treatment of "human ailments"; some, such as Delaware, use vague concepts such as "transition of nerve energy" to define scope of practice; others, such as New Jersey, specify a severely narrowed scope.[164] US states also differ over whether chiropractors may conduct laboratory tests or diagnostic procedures, dispense dietary supplements, or use other therapies such as homeopathy and acupuncture; in Oregon they can become certified to perform minor surgery and to deliver children via natural childbirth.[219] A 2003 survey of North American chiropractors found that a slight majority favored allowing them to write prescriptions for over-the-counter drugs.[222]

In 2024, the University of Pittsburgh announced a Doctor of Chiropractic program—the first of its kind at a public research intensive university.[223][224]

History

[edit]
Daniel David (D. D.) Palmer, founder of chiropractic

Chiropractic's origins lie in the folk medicine practice of bonesetting, in which untrained practitioners engaged in joint manipulation or resetting fractured bones.[9] Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by Daniel David (D. D.) Palmer in Davenport, Iowa. Palmer, a magnetic healer, hypothesized that manual manipulation of the spine could cure disease.[225] The first chiropractic patient of D. D. Palmer was Harvey Lillard, a worker in the building where Palmer's office was located.[226] He claimed that he had severely reduced hearing for 17 years, which started shortly following a "pop" in his spine.[226] A few days following his adjustment, Lillard claimed his hearing was almost completely restored.[226] Another of Palmer's patients, Samuel Weed, coined the term chiropractic, from Greek χειρο- chiro- 'hand' (itself from χείρ cheir 'hand') and πρακτικός praktikos 'practical'.[227][228] Chiropractic is classified as a field of pseudomedicine.[229]

Chiropractic competed with its predecessor osteopathy, another medical system based on magnetic healing; both systems were founded by charismatic midwesterners in opposition to the conventional medicine of the day, and both postulated that manipulation improved health.[225] Although initially keeping chiropractic a family secret, in 1898 Palmer began teaching it to a few students at his new Palmer School of Chiropractic.[22] One student, his son Bartlett Joshua (B. J.) Palmer, became committed to promoting chiropractic, took over the Palmer School in 1906, and rapidly expanded its enrollment.[22] His son B. J. Palmer helped to expand chiropractic in the early 20th century.[22]

Early chiropractors believed that all disease was caused by interruptions in the flow of innate intelligence, a vitalistic nervous energy or life force that represented God's presence in man; chiropractic leaders often invoked religious imagery and moral traditions.[22] D. D. Palmer said he "received chiropractic from the other world".[23] D. D. and B. J. both seriously considered declaring chiropractic a religion, which might have provided legal protection under the U.S. constitution, but decided against it partly to avoid confusion with Christian Science.[22][23] Early chiropractors also tapped into the Populist movement, emphasizing craft, hard work, competition, and advertisement, aligning themselves with the common man against intellectuals and trusts, among which they included the American Medical Association (AMA).[22]

B. J. Palmer, early developer of chiropractic

Chiropractic has seen considerable controversy and criticism.[25][26] Although D. D. and B. J. were "straight" and disdained the use of instruments, some early chiropractors, whom B. J. scornfully called "mixers", advocated the use of instruments.[22] In 1910, B. J. changed course and endorsed X-rays as necessary for diagnosis; this resulted in a significant exodus from the Palmer School of the more conservative faculty and students.[22] The mixer camp grew until by 1924 B. J. estimated that only 3,000 of the United States' 25,000 chiropractors remained straight.[22] That year, B. J.'s invention and promotion of the neurocalometer, a temperature-sensing device, was highly controversial among B. J.'s fellow straights. By the 1930s, chiropractic was the largest alternative healing profession in the U.S.[22]

Harvey Lillard, first chiropractic patient

Chiropractors faced heavy opposition from organized medicine.[226] D. D. Palmer was jailed in 1907 for practicing medicine without a license.[230][full citation needed] Thousands of chiropractors were prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license, and D. D. and many other chiropractors were jailed.[226] To defend against medical statutes, B. J. argued that chiropractic was separate and distinct from medicine, asserting that chiropractors "analyzed" rather than "diagnosed", and "adjusted" subluxations rather than "treated" disease.[226] B. J. cofounded the Universal Chiropractors' Association (UCA) to provide legal services to arrested chiropractors.[226] Although the UCA won their first test case in Wisconsin in 1907, prosecutions instigated by state medical boards became increasingly common and in many cases were successful. In response, chiropractors conducted political campaigns to secure separate licensing statutes, eventually succeeding in all fifty states, from Kansas in 1913 through Louisiana in 1974.[226] The longstanding feud between chiropractors and medical doctors continued for decades.

Chiropractic philosophy includes the following perspectives:[34]

Holism assumes that health is affected by everything in an individual's environment; some sources also include a spiritual or existential dimension.[231] In contrast, reductionism in chiropractic reduces causes and cures of health problems to a single factor, vertebral subluxation.[35] Homeostasis emphasizes the body's inherent self-healing abilities. Chiropractic's early notion of innate intelligence can be thought of as a metaphor for homeostasis.[33]

A large number of chiropractors fear that if they do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence, chiropractic will continue to be seen as a fringe profession.[232] A variant of chiropractic called naprapathy originated in Chicago in the early twentieth century.[233][234] It holds that manual manipulation of soft tissue can reduce "interference" in the body and thus improve health.[234]

Straights (Vitalists) versus Mixers (Materialists)

[edit]
1914 advertisement for a Straight Chiropractic as opposed to a Mixer Chiropractic

By 1914,[235] chiropractors had begun to divide into two groups: "Straights", adherents of the Palmers' supernatural vitalist beliefs, and "Mixers" who sought to integrate Chiropractic into science-based mainstream medicine.[236]: 172 

Range of belief perspectives in chiropractic
Perspective attribute Potential belief endpoints
Scope of practice: narrow ("straight") ← → broad ("mixer")
Philosophic orientation: vitalistic ← → materialistic
Falsifiability: untestable
Cannot be proven or disproven
testable
Lends itself to scientific inquiry
Taken from Mootz & Phillips 1997[34]

Originally, Straight chiropractors adhered to pseudoscientific Vitalist ideas set forth by D. D. and B. J. Palmer, and even modern "straights" often retain metaphysical definitions and vitalistic qualities.[226] Straight chiropractors believed that vertebral subluxation leads to interference with an "innate intelligence" exerted via the human nervous system and is a primary underlying risk factor for many diseases.[226] Straights view the medical diagnosis of patient complaints, which they consider to be the "secondary effects" of subluxations, to be unnecessary for chiropractic treatment.[226] Thus, straight chiropractors are concerned primarily with the detection and correction of vertebral subluxation via adjustment and do not "mix" other types of therapies into their practice style.[226] Their philosophy and explanations were metaphysical in nature, and they preferred to use traditional chiropractic lexicon terminology such as "perform spinal analysis", "detect subluxation", "correct with adjustment".[232] They preferred to remain separate and distinct from mainstream health care.[232] Modernly, "Straights" are a minority among Chiropractors, though "they have been able to transform their status as purists and heirs of the lineage into influence dramatically out of proportion to their numbers."[232]

Mixers, who make up the majority of chiropractors, "mix" chiropractic with diagnostic and treatment approaches from mainstream medical and osteopathic practices.[232] Unlike straight chiropractors, mixers believe subluxation is just one of many causes of disease, and mixers are open to mainstream medicine.[232] Many mixers incorporate mainstream medical diagnostics and employ conventional medical treatments including techniques of physical therapy such as exercise, stretching, massage, ice packs, electrical muscle stimulation, therapeutic ultrasound, and moist heat.[232] But some mixers also use techniques from pseudoscientific alternative medicine, including unnecessary nutritional supplements, acupuncture, homeopathy, herbal remedies, and biofeedback.[232] Author Holly Folk writes that "Few Mixer chiropractors use the term anymore. Today, one is more likely to hear this side described as 'holistic,' 'wellness-oriented,' or 'integrative' practitioners."[236]: 114  Folk argues that "osteopathy underwent a 'Straight-Mixer' debate between traditional vitalists and a faction that embraced the new medical science".: 172 

Although mixers are the majority group, many of them retain belief in vertebral subluxation as shown in a 2003 survey of 1,100 North American chiropractors, which found that 88 percent wanted to retain the term "vertebral subluxation complex", and that when asked to estimate the percent of disorders of internal organs that subluxation significantly contributes to, the mean response was 62 percent.[222] A 2008 survey of 6,000 American chiropractors demonstrated that most chiropractors seem to believe that a subluxation-based clinical approach may be of limited utility for addressing visceral disorders, and greatly favored non-subluxation-based clinical approaches for such conditions.[237] The same survey showed that most chiropractors generally believed that the majority of their clinical approach for addressing musculoskeletal/biomechanical disorders such as back pain was based on subluxation.[237] Chiropractors often offer conventional therapies such as physical therapy and lifestyle counseling, and it may for the lay person be difficult to distinguish the unscientific from the scientific.[238]

Restraint of trade decision 1989

[edit]

The AMA labeled chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966,[30] and until 1980 advised its members that it was unethical for medical doctors to associate with "unscientific practitioners".[239] This culminated in a landmark 1987 decision, Wilk v. AMA, in which the court found that the AMA had engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade and conspiracy, and which ended the AMA's de facto boycott of chiropractic.[10]

Growing scholarly interest

[edit]

Serious research to test chiropractic theories did not begin until the 1970s, and is continuing to be hampered by antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas that sustained the profession in its long battle with organized medicine.[226] By the mid-1990s there was a growing scholarly interest in chiropractic, which helped efforts to improve service quality and establish clinical guidelines that recommended manual therapies for acute low back pain.[226]

In recent decades chiropractic gained legitimacy and greater acceptance by medical physicians and health plans, and enjoyed a strong political base and sustained demand for services.[10] However, its future seemed uncertain: as the number of practitioners grew, evidence-based medicine insisted on treatments with demonstrated value, managed care restricted payment, and competition grew from massage therapists and other health professions.[10] The profession responded by marketing natural products and devices more aggressively, and by reaching deeper into alternative medicine and primary care.[10]

Public health

[edit]

Some chiropractors oppose vaccination and water fluoridation, which are common public health practices.[35] Within the chiropractic community there are significant disagreements about vaccination, one of the most cost-effective public health interventions available.[240] Most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects,[28] claiming that it is hazardous, ineffective, and unnecessary.[29] Some chiropractors have embraced vaccination, but a significant portion of the profession rejects it, as original chiropractic philosophy traces diseases to causes in the spine and states that vaccines interfere with healing.[29] The extent to which anti-vaccination views perpetuate the current chiropractic profession is uncertain.[28] The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractors Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease.[29] The Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination;[28] a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children.[241]

Early opposition to water fluoridation included chiropractors, some of whom continue to oppose it as being incompatible with chiropractic philosophy and an infringement of personal freedom. Other chiropractors have actively promoted fluoridation, and several chiropractic organizations have endorsed scientific principles of public health.[242] In addition to traditional chiropractic opposition to water fluoridation and vaccination, chiropractors' attempts to establish a positive reputation for their public health role are also compromised by their reputation for recommending repetitive lifelong chiropractic treatment.[35]

Controversy

[edit]

Throughout its history chiropractic has been the subject of internal and external controversy and criticism.[232][243] According to Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, subluxation is the sole cause of disease and manipulation is the cure for all diseases of the human race.[9][244] A 2003 profession-wide survey[222] found "most chiropractors (whether 'straights' or 'mixers') still hold views of innate intelligence and of the cause and cure of disease (not just back pain) consistent with those of the Palmers."[245] A critical evaluation stated "Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today."[9] Chiropractors, including D. D. Palmer, were jailed for practicing medicine without a license.[9] For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation.[226] Collectively, systematic reviews have not demonstrated that spinal manipulation, the main treatment method employed by chiropractors, is effective for any medical condition, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[9] Chiropractic remains controversial, though to a lesser extent than in past years.[25]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine originating in the late 19th century, centered on the manual manipulation of the spine to diagnose and treat presumed vertebral subluxations—misalignments believed to impinge on nerves and thereby cause a variety of health issues beyond the musculoskeletal system. Founded by Daniel David Palmer in 1895, who performed the first documented adjustment on a patient claiming restored hearing after spinal manipulation, the practice expanded through Palmer's school and his son B.J. Palmer's innovations, evolving into a distinct profession despite early legal battles with medical authorities. Empirical evidence from systematic reviews supports modest short-term benefits of spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain and some headaches, comparable to exercise or physical therapy, but shows no superiority over placebo for non-spinal conditions and underscores the lack of causal support for the subluxation theory central to traditional chiropractic doctrine. Controversies abound, with the field's foundational claims rooted in unverified mystical and vitalistic concepts rather than rigorous scientific validation, leading to divisions between evidence-based practitioners focusing on musculoskeletal care and those adhering to broader, unsubstantiated therapeutic scopes. While generally safe with mostly benign adverse events like transient soreness reported in 30-55% of cases, serious risks including arterial dissection and stroke from cervical manipulation, though rare (estimated at 1 in millions), highlight the need for cautious application, particularly in vulnerable populations. Economic analyses suggest chiropractic care may reduce overall costs for back pain management compared to some medical alternatives, yet persistent reliance on outdated paradigms impedes full integration into evidence-based healthcare.

Definition and Core Principles

Philosophical Foundations

Chiropractic philosophy originates from the ideas of Daniel David Palmer, who founded the discipline in 1895 in Davenport, Iowa. Palmer articulated a worldview rooted in vitalism, positing that a universal intelligence—described as the organizing principle present in all matter and equated by him to "God, the Eternal, the All-Wise"—underlies natural laws and animates living systems. This universal intelligence manifests within organisms as innate intelligence, an inherent, adaptive force that directs bodily functions, maintains homeostasis, and facilitates self-healing without external material intervention. Central to this philosophy is the 33 principles codified by B.J. Palmer, D.D. Palmer's son, which formalize innate intelligence as the vital entity distinguishing living from non-living matter. Principle 1 states: "The Major Premise: There is an Intelligence in all matter and matter takes its character from this Intelligence, which is universal in its nature." Principle 20 elaborates: "There is a substance of life, which we call Innate Intelligence, present in every organism, which is the animating force." Principle 6, the Principle of Time, states that there is no process that does not require time, emphasizing the need for time in bodily organization, coordination, and adaptation of forces. Principle 23 specifies that innate intelligence adapts universal forces and matter for bodily use, ensuring all parts work in harmony. These principles frame health as the optimal expression of innate intelligence, with dis-ease—intentionally hyphenated by both D.D. and B.J. Palmer to signify "lack of ease" or disharmony in the body, distinct from "disease" (which implies external pathology)—arising from its interference rather than external pathogens alone, underscoring chiropractic's emphasis on restoring innate harmony rather than merely treating symptoms. Palmer's concepts drew from 19th-century influences including mesmerism, spiritualism, and teleological metaphors, evolving through his writings from 1896 to 1913. While early formulations emphasized moral and metaphysical dimensions—such as innate intelligence's role in ethical living—later chiropractic thinkers debated interpretations, with some viewing it as a deductive major premise for clinical reasoning and others critiquing its vitalistic elements as incompatible with empirical science. Nonetheless, these foundations distinguish chiropractic from biomedical models by prioritizing the body's self-regulating capacity over symptom suppression. Professional organizations such as the World Federation of Chiropractic describe chiropractic as a holistic health profession that employs a biopsychosocial model of care. This approach treats the patient as a whole, taking into account biomedical, psychological, and social components of health, including the patient's needs, beliefs, preferences, full medical history, lifestyle, and personal circumstances, rather than focusing solely on isolated symptoms. Chiropractors emphasize the body's innate ability to heal, supported through manual therapies including spinal adjustments that address the nervous system and musculoskeletal system, while incorporating patient education, advice on exercise and lifestyle, promotion of self-efficacy, rehabilitation, and multicomponent interventions aimed at overall health and well-being. The American Chiropractic Association similarly characterizes chiropractic as a holistic approach to health care that generally excludes drugs or surgery.

Vertebral Subluxation Theory

The vertebral subluxation theory forms a cornerstone of traditional chiropractic philosophy, asserting that partial displacements or dysfunctions of vertebrae, known as subluxations, compress or irritate spinal nerves, thereby interfering with the transmission of vital nerve impulses from the brain to bodily tissues and organs. This disruption is claimed to impair the body's innate self-healing capacity, resulting in a wide array of health conditions beyond mere musculoskeletal disorders, including visceral diseases. The theory posits that chiropractic adjustments to correct these subluxations restore proper nerve flow and health. Daniel David Palmer originated the concept in 1895 during his adjustment of Harvey Lillard, a Davenport, Iowa janitor deaf for 17 years following a vertebral popping sensation in his upper back. Palmer identified a subluxation at the atlas vertebra, adjusted it, and Lillard reportedly regained hearing, which Palmer interpreted as evidence of subluxation-induced nerve impingement preventing auditory function. Drawing from magnetic healing and anatomical observations, Palmer formalized the idea that 95% of diseases stem from spinal misalignments affecting nerves, as detailed in his later writings. The term "subluxation," borrowed from earlier medical literature denoting minor joint displacements, was adapted by Palmer to encompass not just mechanical shifts but functional lesions causing systemic pathology. The theory evolved through Palmer's son, Bartlett Joshua Palmer, who amplified its scope, establishing "straight" chiropractic schools emphasizing subluxation detection and correction via X-rays and instrumentation for non-symptomatic care. Proponents, including the International Chiropractors Association, define vertebral subluxation as a "potentially reversible or preventable alteration of spinal motion segments from normal alignment or function," central to practice. However, internal chiropractic divisions emerged, with "mixer" practitioners incorporating broader therapies and evidence-based approaches, often de-emphasizing unsubstantiated subluxation claims for visceral disease causation. Scientific scrutiny reveals no empirical support for the theory's core assertions. Anatomical studies fail to demonstrate that minor vertebral displacements produce nerve compression sufficient to cause distant organ dysfunction, and clinical trials show spinal manipulation benefits limited to low back pain and related conditions, not systemic diseases. Reviews characterize the concept as implausible, lacking validation through controlled experiments or imaging confirmation of causal links to non-musculoskeletal ailments. Critics, including former chiropractors, argue it perpetuates pseudoscientific foundations incompatible with modern physiology, where disease etiologies involve complex multifactorial processes rather than singular nerve interference from spinal misalignment. Despite this, subluxation remains doctrinally entrenched in segments of the profession, contributing to ongoing debates over chiropractic's scientific legitimacy.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Pioneers

Daniel David Palmer, born on March 7, 1845, in Pickering, Ontario, Canada, immigrated to the United States around 1865 and later practiced as a magnetic healer in Davenport, Iowa, starting in 1888. Palmer, who held spiritualist beliefs and experimented with energy-based healing, sought to differentiate his methods from conventional medicine by emphasizing spinal manipulation to address disease causes. On September 18, 1895, Palmer performed what is regarded as the first chiropractic adjustment on Harvey Lillard, a janitor in the same building who had lost hearing in one ear following a back strain 17 years earlier. According to Palmer's account, Lillard reported restored hearing after the manipulation of a vertebral subluxation, which Palmer theorized impinged on nerves supplying the auditory system, thereby interrupting vital force transmission—a concept he termed "innate intelligence" flowing through the nervous system. This event, documented in Palmer's writings and corroborated by chiropractic historical records, marked the empirical origin of chiropractic as a distinct practice, though the hearing recovery remains an unverified anecdotal claim central to its foundational narrative. Palmer formalized chiropractic by establishing the Palmer School of Chiropractic (initially the Palmer Infirmary and Chiropractic Institute) in Davenport in 1897, training the first students in spinal adjustment techniques to correct subluxations and restore health without drugs or surgery. He published foundational texts outlining the philosophy, asserting that 95% of diseases stemmed from spinal misalignments disrupting nerve function, a view derived from his observations rather than controlled experimentation. Palmer's son, Bartlett Joshua (B.J.) Palmer, born in 1882, took over the school in 1906 after purchasing it from his father, transforming it into a major institution and earning recognition as chiropractic's "Developer." B.J. Palmer expanded the profession through aggressive promotion, introducing neurocalometer technology in the 1920s for detecting subluxations via heat differentials and advocating the "Big Idea" that innate intelligence self-heals when unobstructed, influencing early chiropractic philosophy and practice standardization. Under his leadership, enrollment grew, and chiropractic spread internationally, though internal debates over mixing therapies persisted.

Evolution and Internal Divisions

Following D.D. Palmer's death in 1913, chiropractic experienced profound internal evolution characterized by ideological schisms that shaped its professional trajectory for over a century. The primary division emerged between "straights," who adhered strictly to the founder's vitalistic philosophy of correcting vertebral subluxations exclusively through spinal adjustments to restore innate intelligence, and "mixers," who expanded practices to include adjunctive therapies like physiotherapy, diet, and massage, viewing chiropractic as a broader drugless healing art. This conflict intensified during the Era of Prosecution (1900–1950), with over 15,000 legal actions against practitioners, 20% resulting in imprisonment, as straights like B.J. Palmer defended a "separate and distinct" identity against medical assimilation. B.J. Palmer, D.D. Palmer's son, solidified the straight faction through innovations like the neurocalometer in 1924 and leadership of the Universal Chiropractors' Association, which evolved into the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) founded in 1926 to promote principle-based subluxation care. Mixers, seeking legitimacy via eclectic methods, established the American Chiropractic Association in 1922 as an alternative to Palmer's group, reorganizing into its modern form in 1963 to advocate expanded scope amid ongoing external persecution, including the American Medical Association's Committee on Quackery formed in 1962. These divisions manifested in organizational rivalries, with the ICA upholding traditional vitalism while the ACA pursued evidence-informed integration, contributing to fragmented unity during licensure battles and the Wilk v. AMA antitrust victory in 1987. Professionalization efforts further exacerbated tensions, as the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE), recognized by the U.S. Department of Education in 1974, imposed standards favoring mixer curricula with diagnostic training and basic sciences, prompting straight-aligned schools like Sherman College to file antitrust lawsuits against the CCE, ACA, and National Board of Chiropractic Examiners in 1986. Similar litigation, including Life University v. CCE in 2003, highlighted disputes over accreditation's doctrinal bias toward broad-scope practice, limiting straight institutions' federal student aid eligibility until settlements. Despite partial convergence in the Era of Legitimation (1960–present), where chiropractic gained licensure in 90 global jurisdictions and university-based education, the straight-mixer schism endures, impeding consensus on core identity—subluxation-centric vitalism versus musculoskeletal evidence-based care—and mainstream healthcare integration, as evidenced by persistent low public trust rankings. Early chiropractors encountered significant legal opposition from medical authorities, who prosecuted practitioners for operating without a medical license under statutes prohibiting unlicensed medical practice. Daniel David Palmer, chiropractic's founder, was imprisoned for 23 days in Scott County Jail, Iowa, in 1906 after refusing to pay a fine for such an offense. A pivotal early victory occurred in the 1907 Morikubo case in Wisconsin, where chiropractor Shegataro Morikubo was acquitted after demonstrating that his adjustments did not constitute drugless healing under the state's medical practice act, establishing a legal precedent distinguishing chiropractic from general medical practice. The Universal Chiropractors' Association formed in 1906 primarily to defend members against legal prosecutions and advocate for statutory recognition. Kansas enacted the first U.S. state law specifically licensing chiropractors in 1913, requiring examination and registration while exempting the profession from broader medical licensing requirements. By 1923, all Canadian provinces except Quebec had licensed chiropractic, with Alberta passing the first such legislation in 1923. The American Chiropractic Association (originally the United Chiropractors of America, later renamed) was established in 1922 to represent broad-scope practitioners and advance professional standards. The International Chiropractors Association followed in 1926, emphasizing chiropractic's foundational principles. Licensure expanded unevenly across U.S. states amid ongoing conflicts with organized medicine; by 1974, Louisiana became the final state to enact chiropractic licensing laws, achieving universal regulation in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. The National Board of Chiropractic Examiners was founded in 1963 to standardize examinations, administering its first national tests in 1965 to facilitate interstate practice mobility. A landmark antitrust case, Wilk et al. v. American Medical Association et al., filed in 1976, alleged a conspiracy to eliminate chiropractic competition; in 1987, a federal court ruled in favor of the chiropractors, finding the AMA guilty of unreasonable restraint of trade and invalidating its ethical ban on physician-chiropractor collaboration, which had portrayed chiropractic as unscientific. This decision marked a turning point in professional acceptance, though chiropractic organizations maintain it preserved autonomy against medical dominance rather than endorsing efficacy claims.

Education, Training, and Regulation

Professional Education

Professional education for chiropractors centers on obtaining a Doctor of Chiropractic (DC) degree from an accredited institution, which serves as the primary qualification for entry into the profession. Admission typically requires completion of at least 90 semester hours of undergraduate coursework, including foundational sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics, with a minimum cumulative GPA ranging from 2.25 to 3.0 depending on the program; some institutions mandate a full bachelor's degree or equivalent. DC programs generally span 3.5 to 4 years, encompassing a minimum of 4,200 instructional hours that integrate didactic, laboratory, and clinical components; accelerated options can reduce this to approximately 3 years and 4 months for qualified entrants. The curriculum is structured progressively: the initial 1.5 to 2 years emphasize basic biomedical sciences like anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pathology, and radiology, akin to those in medical schools, followed by advanced studies in chiropractic-specific techniques, diagnosis, and patient management. Subsequent phases incorporate hands-on training in spinal manipulation, adjunctive therapies, and clinical internships where students treat patients under supervision, often accumulating thousands of hours in outpatient settings. Accreditation of DC programs is overseen by the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) in the United States, which establishes standards for curriculum rigor, faculty qualifications, facilities, and clinical competencies to ensure graduates meet professional benchmarks. These standards require integration of evidence-informed practices alongside traditional chiropractic principles, though programs vary in emphasis on research literacy and interprofessional collaboration. A point of professional debate is the emphasis on active rehabilitation, such as therapeutic exercises, in chiropractic education. CCE standards include therapeutic exercise, but National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) exams focus primarily on sciences and adjustment techniques, with no dedicated active-rehabilitation domain—unlike Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) curricula, which make it central. The World Federation of Chiropractic’s (WFC) 2019 Rehabilitation Competency Framework encouraged greater integration of evidence-informed rehabilitation skills worldwide, welcomed by many educators. The International Chiropractors Association (ICA) and subluxation-focused (“straight”) practitioners, however, express philosophical reservations, viewing a heavy rehabilitation emphasis as potentially diluting chiropractic’s traditional vitalistic identity and its historic core objective of detecting and correcting vertebral subluxations—a concept that remains central to their philosophy but which systematic reviews have found lacks scientific evidence of existence as a detectable clinical entity capable of causing visceral disease or requiring specific correction for general health. Critics of this vitalistic model argue that limited entry-level training in active rehabilitation can foster patient dependency on repeated passive care, as clinical evidence from guidelines for musculoskeletal disorders like low back pain indicates that passive manual therapies alone may lead to less optimal long-term outcomes compared to multimodal approaches incorporating therapeutic exercises, which reduce recurrence and enhance patient self-management. Internationally, similar bodies like the Councils on Chiropractic Education International (CCEI) harmonize requirements across countries, with over 20 nations hosting accredited programs as of 2022. Graduates must subsequently pass national board examinations, such as those from the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE), prior to state licensure, but this formal education phase equips practitioners with skills for diagnosing and managing primarily musculoskeletal conditions through manual therapies.

Licensing and Scope of Practice

In the United States, chiropractors must obtain licensure from state boards to practice legally, with all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several territories requiring a Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) degree from a Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE)-accredited institution, passage of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) examinations (Parts I-IV), and often a bachelor's degree or equivalent undergraduate credits. Additional state-specific requirements may include jurisprudence exams, background checks, and limited clinical experience, while most states mandate continuing education for renewal, typically 12-40 hours biennially focused on clinical competency and ethics. The scope of practice for U.S. chiropractors centers on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of neuromusculoskeletal disorders, primarily through spinal manipulation and manual therapies, though it varies by state statute. In broader jurisdictions, such as Texas, chiropractors may perform physical therapy modalities (e.g., ultrasound, electrical stimulation), order diagnostic imaging, and conduct minor procedures like needle use for non-surgical purposes, but they are prohibited from prescribing medications, performing surgery, or practicing outside musculoskeletal conditions unless explicitly authorized. Narrower scopes in some states restrict practice to spinal adjustments and associated conditions, reflecting historical debates over expanding beyond vertebral subluxation theory, with the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards (FCLB) promoting model acts that emphasize evidence-informed care within defined limits to ensure public safety. Internationally, chiropractic licensing and scope exhibit significant variation, with statutory regulation in 42 countries as of 2019, often requiring degrees from accredited programs (typically 4-5 years) and national exams akin to U.S. standards. In nations like the United Kingdom and Australia, regulated under bodies such as the General Chiropractic Council, practitioners hold full practice rights for spinal manipulation and musculoskeletal care but face restrictions on diagnostics or therapeutics overlapping with medicine, emphasizing title protection and mandatory registration. Countries without formal regulation, such as many in Africa and Asia, permit practice under general health laws but lack standardized licensing, leading to inconsistent scopes that may include or exclude adjunctive therapies based on local legislation rather than unified professional standards. The World Federation of Chiropractic tracks these differences, noting that while core manipulation remains universal, expansions into physiotherapy or nutrition are jurisdiction-dependent and subject to interprofessional turf disputes.

International Variations

Chiropractic is statutorily regulated in approximately 50 countries, with legal status categorized by the World Federation of Chiropractic as fully regulated under specific legislation, practiced under general health laws, unclear or de facto tolerated, or facing risk of prosecution. North America and the Western Pacific exhibit robust regulation, including mandatory licensing and defined scopes of practice, whereas Africa and Asia display greater variability, with many nations lacking formal recognition and exposing practitioners to legal uncertainties. In Europe, 13 countries including Denmark, France, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom maintain specific statutory frameworks, while others like Germany and the Netherlands operate under broader health regulations, contributing to inconsistencies in cross-border practice recognition. Educational requirements also diverge internationally, though the World Health Organization's guidelines advocate a minimum of 4,200 hours of instruction across biomedical sciences, chiropractic principles, and clinical training. In Canada, candidates must complete at least three years of undergraduate prerequisites before a four-year Doctor of Chiropractic program, followed by passing the Canadian Chiropractic Examining Board examinations for provincial registration, totaling around seven years of post-secondary education. Australia mandates a five-year accredited university program, typically structured as a bachelor's degree in health sciences followed by a master's in chiropractic, with registration requiring assessment by the Chiropractic Board of Australia. In the United Kingdom, the General Chiropractic Council approves four- to five-year integrated master's programs (MChiro or equivalent), demanding A-level qualifications or equivalents for entry and emphasizing clinical competency. Scope of practice varies correspondingly; regulated nations like those in North America often permit diagnosis, spinal manipulation, and adjunctive therapies within musculoskeletal bounds, while unregulated areas may restrict activities to avoid prosecution risks. The European Council on Chiropractic Education seeks to standardize competencies across the continent, but national differences persist, with some countries tying licensure to medical oversight and others granting autonomous status. In Latin America and the Middle East/North Africa, regulation is emerging in select countries like Mexico and Israel, but training often relies on imported standards from accredited international programs, leading to potential gaps in local adaptation. The World Federation of Chiropractic promotes harmonization through policy advocacy, aiming to elevate global standards amid these disparities to mitigate risks from unqualified practice.

Clinical Practice and Techniques

Spinal Manipulation and Adjustment

Spinal manipulation, commonly referred to as chiropractic adjustment, consists of applying a targeted, controlled force to individual spinal joints using the hands or a specialized instrument to enhance joint motion and reduce associated discomfort. This manual therapy targets hypo-mobile segments identified through physical palpation and assessment of spinal alignment and range of motion. The predominant method employs high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) thrusts, delivering a swift impulse—typically 220–889 Newtons over 75–225 millimeters—directed perpendicular to the joint plane at the end range of passive motion, without exceeding anatomical limits. Patients are positioned supine, prone, or side-lying on a padded treatment table, with the chiropractor stabilizing adjacent structures while imparting the thrust, frequently eliciting an audible "pop" from synovial fluid cavitation as gas bubbles collapse within the joint capsule. Post-adjustment, joint mobility is re-evaluated to confirm improved function. Several variations exist within chiropractic practice. The diversified technique, utilized in over 70% of adjustments, relies on direct manual HVLA thrusts tailored to specific vertebral levels. Drop-table methods, such as the Thompson terminal point technique, incorporate a segmented table that yields slightly under the thrust to amplify segmental motion without increasing force amplitude. For patients intolerant to HVLA, low-force alternatives include spinal mobilization via sustained oscillatory pressures or the Activator Method, which uses a handheld, spring-loaded mallet to deliver precise impulses. Flexion-distraction employs a specialized table to induce gentle, rhythmic flexion and traction, decompressing intervertebral discs and facets primarily for lumbar applications. These approaches prioritize patient comfort while aiming to address joint restrictions empirically observed in musculoskeletal complaints like acute low back pain.

Adjunctive Therapies

Chiropractors frequently employ adjunctive therapies alongside spinal manipulation to address musculoskeletal conditions, aiming to enhance pain relief, reduce inflammation, and improve mobility. These procedures, often drawn from physical therapy modalities, include soft tissue techniques such as massage and myofascial release, which target muscle adhesions and trigger points to alleviate tension and promote healing. Other common interventions encompass cryotherapy or thermotherapy for modulating inflammation and pain, as well as ultrasound to deliver deep heat and facilitate tissue repair in conditions like tendonitis. Electrotherapeutic modalities, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current, are utilized to interrupt pain signals and stimulate endorphin release, particularly for acute injuries or chronic low back pain. Patient education on therapeutic exercises, posture correction, and lifestyle modifications serves as a non-invasive adjunct, with studies indicating that combining such active rehabilitation with manipulation yields better short-term outcomes for low back pain than manipulation alone. Nutritional counseling and custom orthotics may also be recommended to address contributing factors like dietary inflammation or biomechanical imbalances, though their integration varies by practitioner scope. Evidence for these adjunctive approaches remains supportive rather than definitive; a Cochrane review found moderate benefits from massage for subacute and chronic back pain, comparable to other conservative treatments, but emphasized the need for larger trials. Techniques like Active Release Therapy (ART) and extracorporeal shockwave therapy show promise in reducing soft tissue restrictions, yet randomized controlled trials often highlight patient expectations and placebo effects as contributors to perceived efficacy over specific mechanisms. Usage prevalence is high, with surveys reporting that over 90% of chiropractors incorporate soft tissue work and physiotherapeutic agents, reflecting a multimodal approach aligned with evidence-based guidelines for nonspecific musculoskeletal disorders.

Evidence-Based Guidelines

Evidence-based guidelines for chiropractic care emphasize spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) as a nonpharmacologic option primarily for acute and subacute nonspecific low back pain, where it provides modest short-term pain relief and functional improvement comparable to other conservative interventions such as exercise or analgesics, though evidence quality is often moderate to low. The American College of Physicians (ACP) 2017 guideline recommends clinicians offer SMT alongside superficial heat, massage, or acupuncture as initial treatments for acute or subacute low back pain lasting less than 12 weeks, prioritizing these over pharmacologic options due to lower risk of adverse effects, with decisions guided by patient preferences and clinician expertise. For chronic low back pain exceeding 12 weeks, the ACP advises against routine SMT as a standalone therapy, favoring multimodal approaches including exercise, psychological interventions, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation, as SMT shows no clinically superior long-term benefits over sham or inert treatments in systematic reviews. The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guideline on low back pain and sciatica similarly endorses manual therapies like SMT within a self-management framework for persistent pain, recommending up to nine sessions of specialist input including manipulation for those not improving after initial advice, exercise, and pharmacological trials, but cautions against its use in isolation and stresses shared decision-making to address psychological factors. For neck pain, best-practice recommendations from chiropractic-focused reviews, informed by randomized trials, suggest SMT combined with exercise and mobilization for acute nonspecific cases, aiming to reduce pain and disability in the short term, though evidence is limited by small sample sizes and heterogeneity in techniques. Cochrane analyses indicate SMT yields similar outcomes to physical therapy or analgesics for acute low back pain but lacks high-quality proof of superiority over placebo for chronic or radicular symptoms, highlighting the need for patient-specific predictors like symptom duration under 16 days or no leg pain for better response. Guidelines universally advise against routine imaging or advanced diagnostics for uncomplicated musculoskeletal complaints, reserving SMT for cases without red flags like progressive neurological deficits, and integrate it into broader care pathways emphasizing education, activity maintenance, and risk stratification to minimize harms such as transient soreness. Independent syntheses, including those from the ACP and Cochrane, prioritize empirical trial data over anecdotal or theoretical claims, noting that while chiropractic organizations like the American Chiropractic Association endorse SMT for headaches and extremity conditions based on lower-quality evidence, mainstream bodies limit endorsements to back-related disorders due to insufficient comparative effectiveness data elsewhere. Overall, these frameworks promote chiropractic as adjunctive rather than primary care, with efficacy tied to contextual factors like provider training and patient selection, rather than unsubstantiated vertebral subluxation paradigms.

Scientific Evidence and Effectiveness

Efficacy for Musculoskeletal Disorders

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), the primary intervention in chiropractic care, demonstrates modest efficacy for pain relief and functional improvement in acute low back pain (LBP), with effects comparable to other recommended conservative treatments such as exercise or analgesics. A 2017 meta-analysis of 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,717 participants found that SMT was associated with small, short-term improvements in pain (mean difference -10 on a 100-point scale) and function at up to 6 weeks, though no benefits were observed beyond this period. Similarly, a Cochrane review of 15 RCTs concluded that SMT provides no clinically relevant advantage over other therapies for acute LBP, supported by low-quality evidence indicating equivalent outcomes to usual care or sham manipulation. For chronic LBP, evidence supports SMT as an effective option for symptom management, yielding similar reductions in pain and disability to evidence-based alternatives like physical therapy or medication, but outperforming non-recommended interventions such as bed rest. A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis of 47 RCTs reported moderate-quality evidence that SMT reduces pain intensity (standardized mean difference -0.28) and improves function, with effects persisting up to 6 months in some cases. The 2011 Cochrane review of 26 RCTs further affirmed high-quality evidence of no significant differences in outcomes between SMT and other active treatments for chronic LBP, positioning it as a viable non-pharmacological approach. In neck pain, SMT shows potential for short-term pain reduction and increased range of motion, particularly in acute nonspecific cases, though results are inconsistent compared to mobilization or exercise. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that SMT significantly lowers pain and disability in acute neck pain patients, with low risk of adverse events. However, earlier reviews, including a best evidence synthesis, found insufficient high-quality data to confirm superiority over conventional physical therapy for chronic neck pain. Across musculoskeletal disorders, clinical practice guidelines from organizations like the American College of Physicians endorse SMT as a first-line non-drug treatment for acute and chronic LBP, reflecting accumulated RCT evidence of comparable efficacy to other modalities without superior long-term benefits. Limitations include reliance on self-reported outcomes, potential placebo contributions, and variable study quality, with few trials isolating chiropractic-specific techniques from adjunctive care. Overall, while SMT addresses symptoms effectively in select spinal conditions, causal mechanisms beyond biomechanical effects remain unproven, emphasizing its role in multimodal conservative management rather than standalone cure.

Safety Considerations

Mild adverse events following chiropractic spinal manipulation are common, occurring in 23% to 83% of treatments, typically manifesting as transient soreness, stiffness, headache, or fatigue, often similar to post-exercise soreness, lasting 24 to 48 hours. Serious adverse events, such as vertebrobasilar stroke, disc herniation, or cauda equina syndrome, are rare, with incidence rates estimated at approximately 0.21 per 100,000 manipulations based on retrospective analyses of clinical records. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials indicate that while reporting of adverse events has improved, severe complications remain infrequent and often underreported due to reliance on voluntary submissions rather than mandatory surveillance. Cervical spinal manipulation carries a particular risk of vertebral or carotid artery dissection leading to ischemic stroke, with the association potentially involving primarily the aggravation of pre-existing dissections rather than initiation of new ones, as suggested by biomechanical and epidemiological evidence; case-control studies show a small but statistically significant association, though causality is not definitively established. Population-based studies estimate this risk at about 1 in 1 to 5 million cervical manipulations, comparable to or lower than risks from everyday activities like rapid head turning or certain medical procedures, but higher than for lumbar manipulation. Reviews of multiple studies express mixed conclusions on overall safety, with 46% deeming spinal manipulation safe, 13% highlighting harms, and the remainder neutral, underscoring the need for patient-specific risk assessment, especially in those with vascular risk factors. In comparison to alternative therapies for musculoskeletal pain, chiropractic manipulation demonstrates a similar safety profile to physical therapy or mobilization techniques, with no excess serious events in head-to-head trials, though all manual therapies share risks of minor transient effects. Contraindications include acute inflammatory conditions, severe osteoporosis, or known arterial fragility, and practitioners are advised to screen for red flags like unexplained neurological symptoms to mitigate rare but potentially catastrophic outcomes. Empirical data supports informed consent emphasizing these probabilities over absolute safety claims.

Cost-Effectiveness and Comparative Outcomes

Studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care for spine-related musculoskeletal disorders, such as low back pain (LBP), have generally found lower overall healthcare expenditures compared to usual medical management, particularly when chiropractic serves as the initial treatment modality. A 2015 systematic review of 13 cost-comparison studies, including data from private health insurance and workers' compensation plans, reported that healthcare costs were lower for patients receiving chiropractic care, with reductions attributed to decreased utilization of advanced imaging, pharmaceuticals, and emergency services. This pattern held across acute and chronic cases, though the review noted variability due to differences in study designs and populations. A 2024 systematic review of 14 studies involving adults with spine-related pain similarly concluded that costs were generally lower under chiropractic management, with effect sizes indicating savings of 20-40% in total claims expenditures in multiple analyses, despite limitations like observational data and potential confounding from patient self-selection. Comparative outcomes against medical care show chiropractic spinal manipulation providing equivalent or modestly superior short-term pain relief and functional improvements for nonspecific LBP, often at reduced cost. For instance, an analysis of commercial health plan data from 2005-2008 found average per-episode costs for back pain were $289 for chiropractic-covered patients versus $399 for those without such coverage, a 28% reduction linked to fewer opioid prescriptions and specialist referrals. In a randomized trial augmenting usual medical care with chiropractic for active-duty military personnel with LBP, the addition yielded moderate improvements in pain intensity and disability at 6 weeks, with no significant cost escalation beyond the intervention itself. However, a pragmatic economic evaluation of LBP treatment in Switzerland reported chiropractic care as slightly more expensive than medical care for acute cases (adjusted mean difference of $63 at 12 months), though costs converged for chronic LBP with comparable health gains.
Study/SourceConditionKey Cost FindingOutcome Comparison
Hurwitz et al. (2015 systematic review)Spine pain (acute/chronic)20-40% lower total costs vs. medical careSimilar pain relief; reduced ancillary services
Whedon et al. (2024 systematic review)Spine-related painLower claims costs with chiropractic initiationModest long-term savings; variable quality of evidence
Legorreta et al. (2004 claims analysis)Back pain episodes$289 vs. $399 per episode (28% lower)Fewer hospitalizations and drug claims
Goertz et al. (2018 RCT)Acute/chronic LBPNo added cost burden from augmentationBetter short-term pain/disability scores
For chronic LBP, chiropractic care has demonstrated relative cost-effectiveness in direct comparisons, with one evaluation finding it comparable to medical approaches for acute episodes but superior economically for persistent symptoms due to sustained reductions in disability-related absenteeism. These findings persist despite methodological challenges, such as reliance on administrative data without full adjustment for severity or comorbidities, underscoring the need for randomized economic trials to isolate causal effects. Overall, empirical evidence supports chiropractic as a lower-cost alternative for managing common musculoskeletal complaints, though outcomes depend on integration with evidence-based protocols rather than standalone use.

Controversies and Criticisms

Scientific and Theoretical Debates

The foundational theory of chiropractic, originating with D.D. Palmer in 1895, asserts that vertebral subluxations—misalignments of the spine—disrupt nerve impulses, thereby causing a range of diseases beyond mere mechanical pain, which spinal adjustments can restore by realigning vertebrae and facilitating innate healing forces. This subluxation paradigm, often linked to concepts of "innate intelligence" or vitalism, posits a causal chain from spinal misalignment to systemic pathology via neurophysiological interference. However, scientific debates center on the empirical validity of this model, with critics arguing it lacks rigorous, reproducible evidence and relies on untestable philosophical assertions rather than falsifiable hypotheses. Proponents within chiropractic cite clinical observations and biomechanical studies of joint dysfunction, but these do not substantiate the broader disease-causation claims. Experimental investigations have consistently failed to validate the chiropractic-specific subluxation as a mechanism for nerve impingement leading to non-localized disease. A 1981 study by Crelin et al. applied pressure simulating subluxation to spinal nerves in cadavers and live animals, finding no evidence of transmitted pressure sufficient to cause pathology akin to chiropractic theory's predictions. Imaging and physiological assessments, including roentgenology and electromyography, detect spinal malpositions but do not correlate them reliably with disease states outside musculoskeletal contexts, undermining the "vertebral subluxation complex" as a diagnostic or etiological entity. Systematic analyses of chiropractic curricula and practice reveal persistent emphasis on subluxation despite these evidentiary gaps, with surveys indicating up to 90% of chiropractors invoking it in patient explanations, even as some institutions de-emphasize it amid calls for evidence-based reform. Debates extend to chiropractic's scope of practice, particularly claims for treating non-musculoskeletal conditions such as asthma, hypertension, or infantile colic through spinal manipulation. Multiple systematic reviews, including a 2021 global summit analysis of randomized trials, conclude there is no credible evidence of efficacy for spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in these domains, with effect sizes indistinguishable from placebo or sham interventions. This contrasts with moderate evidence for SMT in acute low back pain, where benefits appear attributable to mechanical pain relief or non-specific effects like patient expectations, rather than subluxation correction per se. Internal chiropractic discourse reflects schisms between "straight" adherents to Palmer's original vitalistic model and "mixer" or evidence-oriented factions advocating narrower musculoskeletal focus, with the former criticized for promoting unsubstantiated wellness claims that risk patient delay in seeking conventional care. Such divisions highlight tensions between philosophical tradition and demands for causal mechanisms grounded in controlled trials, where chiropractic's theoretical constructs often evade direct testing due to definitional vagueness.

Risks and Adverse Events

Chiropractic spinal manipulation is associated with minor adverse events in a substantial proportion of cases, typically manifesting as transient soreness, stiffness, or headache occurring in up to 50% of patients following treatment. These effects are generally self-limiting and resolve within 24-48 hours without intervention. Serious adverse events, though rare, include vascular injuries such as vertebral artery dissection leading to stroke, particularly after high-velocity cervical manipulation. Case reports document instances of ischemic stroke shortly following neck adjustments, with the V3 segment of the vertebral artery vulnerable to rotational forces. Population-based estimates place the risk of stroke at approximately 1 in 1-5 million manipulations, though underreporting and methodological challenges in observational data complicate precise quantification. Neurological complications, such as cauda equina syndrome or spinal cord myelopathy, have been reported in isolated cases linked to lumbar or thoracic manipulation, often involving disc herniation or preexisting pathology exacerbated by force application. A review of literature from 1911-1989 identified 10 cases of cauda equina syndrome post-manipulation without anesthesia, but a 2024 cohort study of over 6,000 patients found no increased incidence of this syndrome following chiropractic care compared to medical management for low back pain. Orthopedic injuries like vertebral fractures occur infrequently, estimated at 1 per 2 million to 13 per 10,000 manipulations, predominantly in patients with osteoporosis or other fragility factors. Overall incidence of severe events across reviews ranges from 1 per 400,000 to 1 per 2 million treatments, with vascular events comprising the majority. Risks appear higher in cervical versus thoracic or lumbar regions, underscoring the need for patient screening for contraindications such as arterial vulnerabilities or instability.

Professional and Ethical Concerns

Chiropractors have faced ethical scrutiny over expansions in scope of practice that include treatments for non-musculoskeletal conditions, such as asthma or hypertension, where empirical evidence for spinal manipulation's efficacy is lacking. In integrated medical facilities, such interventions may expose patients to risks without concurrent medical oversight, potentially leading to malpractice claims for negligence, battery, or failure to meet expected standards of care. These practices stem from inconsistencies in chiropractic education and protocols, raising concerns about patient safety and professional boundaries. Informed consent processes in chiropractic vary significantly across U.S. states, with some requiring detailed disclosure of risks like vertebral artery dissection from cervical manipulation, while others permit less rigorous documentation. Failure to obtain adequate consent has resulted in legal actions, including malpractice suits alleging inadequate disclosure of procedure risks or alternatives. Ethical codes mandate transparency, yet variations in regulatory guidance and reliance on digital signatures in some jurisdictions have prompted debates over whether such methods sufficiently ensure patient understanding and autonomy. The profession's foundational subluxation theory, positing that spinal misalignments cause a wide array of diseases independent of germ theory, underpins ethical concerns regarding unsubstantiated claims and patient misinformation. This vitalistic philosophy, originating with D.D. Palmer in 1895, lacks verifiable causal mechanisms and has been criticized for promoting treatments without rigorous scientific validation, potentially delaying evidence-based interventions. Adherence to subluxation-centric models by segments of the profession conflicts with broader ethical imperatives for evidence integration, fostering internal divisions between "straight" and evidence-oriented practitioners. A persistent ethical controversy involves chiropractic's historical and ongoing opposition to vaccination, rooted in the rejection of external pathogens as disease causes in favor of innate healing disrupted by subluxations. Early leaders like Palmer labeled vaccines "filthy animal poison," a view echoed by approximately 30% of practitioners who doubt vaccine efficacy or advise against them, as documented in surveys from the 1990s and 2000s. This stance, amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic by vocal anti-vaccine advocates within the field, raises public health concerns by undermining herd immunity and evidence-supported preventive measures, despite endorsements of vaccination by major associations like the American Chiropractic Association. Critics argue it prioritizes philosophical ideology over empirical data, eroding professional credibility and patient trust.

Reception and Societal Impact

Acceptance in Healthcare Systems

Chiropractic is legally recognized as a distinct healthcare profession in 68 of 90 countries surveyed globally, equating to 75.6% of the sample, with explicit illegality in 12 countries and unregulated status elsewhere. The World Health Organization published guidelines on basic training and safety in chiropractic in 2005, aiming to standardize education and facilitate regulatory integration into national health frameworks where evidence supports its use for musculoskeletal conditions. Professional bodies like the World Federation of Chiropractic advocate for chiropractors' roles in public health initiatives focused on non-communicable diseases involving spinal health. In the United States, chiropractors hold licensure in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with federal recognition solidified through Medicare coverage of spinal manipulative therapy since 1972, limited to medically necessary treatments for subluxation as demonstrated by physical exam findings. Coverage extends to Medicaid in most states and workers' compensation programs nationwide, reflecting acceptance for acute and chronic back pain management, though expansion to extraspinal manipulation remains under demonstration projects rather than standard policy. Canada's provincial health insurance systems do not cover chiropractic services, positioning it outside core public funding, but widespread reimbursement occurs via private extended health plans, federal employee benefits, and workers' compensation boards across provinces. In the United Kingdom, chiropractic operates mainly in private practice, with limited National Health Service availability requiring general practitioner referral and confined to select trusts or pilot programs rather than routine provision. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for low back pain and sciatica endorse manual therapy—including spinal manipulation—as a non-invasive option alongside exercise and psychological approaches for persistent symptoms, implicitly accommodating chiropractic within multidisciplinary care. Australia's Medicare system provides targeted subsidies for chiropractic under chronic disease management plans, reimbursing up to five services per calendar year for eligible patients with GP oversight, emphasizing conditions like low back pain managed alongside allied health inputs. This structured but capped access underscores partial public endorsement, supplemented by private insurance in a mixed funding model. Acceptance generally hinges on empirical support for spinal manipulation in musculoskeletal disorders, with regulatory licensure and insurance inclusion prevalent but public system integration varying by jurisdiction's prioritization of cost-effectiveness and evidence hierarchies over broader therapeutic claims.

Public Utilization and Perceptions

In the United States, the prevalence of chiropractic care utilization among adults has increased steadily, rising from 7.5% in 2002 to 11% in 2022 based on National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data, reflecting broader growth in complementary health approaches for pain management. Approximately 35 million Americans receive chiropractic treatment annually, primarily for low back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions, with users often being middle-aged adults seeking non-pharmacological options. Utilization rates are higher among those with spine-related diagnoses, reaching up to 34.5% in Medicare populations with such conditions, and the trend correlates with expanded insurance coverage and recognition within integrated healthcare settings. Globally, rates are lower outside North America and Australia, where chiropractic remains less integrated into mainstream systems, with prevalence often below 5% in European countries. Public perceptions of chiropractic care are generally positive regarding its role in treating neck and back pain, with 61.4% of U.S. respondents in a 2015 national survey agreeing it is effective for these issues, though only 52.6% viewed chiropractors as trustworthy overall. About 24.2% perceived it as dangerous, a view more common among non-users unfamiliar with the profession's focus on spinal manipulation for musculoskeletal relief. These opinions vary by experience: recent users report higher trust and lower risk concerns, influenced by direct encounters, while skeptics often cite unverified claims beyond evidence-based applications like subluxation theory. Surveys indicate perceptions are shaped by local supply of providers and media portrayals, with chiropractic associations promoting efficacy data but facing criticism for overpromising outcomes in non-musculoskeletal areas. Among patients who utilize chiropractic services, satisfaction rates are consistently high, with 83% reporting satisfaction or very high satisfaction in multiple studies, attributed to factors such as thorough explanations, personalized care, and perceived improvements in pain and mobility. In a 2023 analysis, 87% of patients rated overall management as very satisfactory (8 or higher on a 0-10 scale), particularly valuing the non-invasive nature compared to alternatives like opioids. Repeat utilization—often 10-20 visits per episode—suggests sustained positive experiences, though high satisfaction may partly reflect selection bias toward those responsive to manual therapies rather than randomized controlled evidence. Non-users' hesitancy persists, linked to concerns over costs, frequency of visits, and integration with conventional medicine.

Role in Public Health

Chiropractic care contributes to public health by addressing prevalent musculoskeletal disorders, which account for a substantial portion of global disability. Low back pain, for instance, ranks as the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide, affecting over 619 million people as of 2020 estimates from systematic analyses. Spinal manipulation, a core chiropractic intervention, is recommended by clinical guidelines such as those from the American College of Physicians for nonpharmacologic management of acute and chronic low back pain in adults, positioning it as a first-line option to alleviate symptoms without initial reliance on analgesics or surgery. This approach supports public health goals of minimizing iatrogenic harm from pharmaceuticals while promoting functional recovery in conditions like neck pain and extremity issues, which comprise the majority of chiropractic visits. Population-level utilization underscores chiropractic's integration into healthcare systems. Globally, the average 12-month utilization rate stands at 9.1%, with consistent patterns across regions from 1980 to 2016, primarily for low back pain (median 49.7% of cases) and neck pain (22.5%). In the United States, chiropractors treat over 35 million patients annually, serving as initial providers for many with spinal pain and thereby influencing broader health resource allocation. Evidence indicates that patients initiating care with chiropractors for low back pain experience 90% reduced odds of early and long-term opioid prescriptions compared to those starting with medical physicians, a finding corroborated across multiple cohort studies. This association holds for other spinal conditions, with chiropractic users showing up to 64% lower odds of opioid prescriptions, aiding efforts to curb the opioid epidemic that has claimed over 500,000 lives in the U.S. since 1999. Beyond treatment, chiropractic engages in public health through health promotion and preventive strategies, though empirical support remains targeted to musculoskeletal wellness rather than systemic disease prevention. Organizations like the World Federation of Chiropractic advocate for chiropractors' involvement in initiatives addressing noncommunicable diseases, emphasizing spinal health's role in reducing disability burdens. The American Public Health Association maintains a dedicated chiropractic section to apply principles in community settings, including advocacy for evidence-based preventive services such as posture education and early intervention for ergonomic risks. However, while chiropractic curricula increasingly incorporate public health training, claims extending to visceral conditions or innate intelligence lack substantiation from randomized controlled trials, limiting its scope to empirically validated applications in musculoskeletal care. Overall, by fostering conservative management of common pain states, chiropractic alleviates pressure on public health systems, with studies modeling 15% reductions in opioid-related deaths over 15 years through expanded access.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.