BACKGROUND: Although practice protocols exist for SMT and functional rehabilitation, no practice protocols exist for structural rehabilitation. Traditional chiropractic practice guidelines have been limited to acute and chronic pain treatment, with limited inclusion of functional and exclusion of structural rehabilitation procedures. OBJECTIVE: (1) To derive an evidence-based practice protocol for structural rehabilitation from publications on Clinical Biomechanics of Posture (CBP((R))) methods, and (2) to compare the evidence for Diversified, SMT, and CBP((R)). METHODS: Clinical control trials utilizing CBP(R) methods and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) were obtained from searches in Mantis, CINAHL, and Index Medicus. Using data from SMT review articles, evidence for Diversified Technique (as taught in chiropractic colleges), SMT, and CBP((R)) were rated and compared. RESULTS: From the evidence from Clinical Control Trials on SMT and CBP((R)), there is very little evidence support for Diversified (our rating = 18), as taught in chiropractic colleges, for the treatment of pain subjects, while CBP((R)) (our rating = 46) and SMT for neck pain (rating = 58) and low back pain (our rating = 202) have evidence-based support. CONCLUSIONS: While CBP((R)) Technique has approximately as much evidence-based support as SMT for neck pain, CBP((R)) has more evidence to support its methods than the Diversified technique taught in chiropractic colleges, but not as much as SMT for low back pain. The evolution of chiropractic specialization has occurred, and doctors providing structural-based chiropractic care require protocol guidelines for patient quality assurance and standardization. A structural rehabilitation protocol was developed based on evidence from CBP((R)) publications.
BACKGROUND: Although practice protocols exist for SMT and functional rehabilitation, no practice protocols exist for structural rehabilitation. Traditional chiropractic practice guidelines have been limited to acute and chronic pain treatment, with limited inclusion of functional and exclusion of structural rehabilitation procedures. OBJECTIVE: (1) To derive an evidence-based practice protocol for structural rehabilitation from publications on Clinical Biomechanics of Posture (CBP((R))) methods, and (2) to compare the evidence for Diversified, SMT, and CBP((R)). METHODS: Clinical control trials utilizing CBP(R) methods and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) were obtained from searches in Mantis, CINAHL, and Index Medicus. Using data from SMT review articles, evidence for Diversified Technique (as taught in chiropractic colleges), SMT, and CBP((R)) were rated and compared. RESULTS: From the evidence from Clinical Control Trials on SMT and CBP((R)), there is very little evidence support for Diversified (our rating = 18), as taught in chiropractic colleges, for the treatment of pain subjects, while CBP((R)) (our rating = 46) and SMT for neck pain (rating = 58) and low back pain (our rating = 202) have evidence-based support. CONCLUSIONS: While CBP((R)) Technique has approximately as much evidence-based support as SMT for neck pain, CBP((R)) has more evidence to support its methods than the Diversified technique taught in chiropractic colleges, but not as much as SMT for low back pain. The evolution of chiropractic specialization has occurred, and doctors providing structural-based chiropractic care require protocol guidelines for patient quality assurance and standardization. A structural rehabilitation protocol was developed based on evidence from CBP((R)) publications.
Authors: Deed E Harrison; Donald D Harrison; Christopher J Colloca; Joseph Betz; Tadeusz J Janik; Burt Holland Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Deed E Harrison; Rene Cailliet; Donald D Harrison; Tadeusz J Janik; Burt Holland Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Eric L Hurwitz; Hal Morgenstern; Philip Harber; Gerald F Kominski; Thomas R Belin; Fei Yu; Alan H Adams Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468