ChiroACCESS Article



Death by Chiropractic: Another Misbegotten Review



This information is provided to you for use in conjunction with your clinical judgment and the specific needs of the patient.

Anthony L. Rosner, Ph.D., LL.D.[Hon.], LLC

  

ChiroACCESS



Published on

July 27, 2010

Text Size:   (-) Decrease the text size for the main body of this article    (+) Increase the text size for the main body of this article
Share this:  Add to TwitterAdd to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to GoogleAdd to LinkedInAdd to MixxAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to Yahoo
The title of one of Edzard Ernst’s most recent articles, “Deaths after chiropractic: A review of published cases”,1 seems to have wasted no time in creating a worst-case scenario, frightening the reader from a profession which has successfully treated patients for 115 years and for which evidence supporting its effectiveness and safety is abundant.2-6  Ernst has declared an opposing view with copious publications for at least the past 16 years.7-14  Unfortunately, many of Ernst’s assertions regarding spinal manipulation and chiropractic have been discredited in the past15,16 and, in several instances, found to be blatantly misleading.17  The current article1 is no exception.
  1. Chiropractic ManipulationThe problem in perspective:

    Ernst reports a total of 26 deaths in 75 years of chiropractic practice.  That would average to less than 1/3 death per year.  Given the facts that there are an estimated 250M chiropractic visits per year in the United States,18 13.4M chiropractic visits per year in Canada,19 and 2.25M visits per year in the United Kingdom,20 the death rates in each country after chiropractic according to Ernst’s figures calculate to be 0.000000132%, 0.00000246%, and 0.0000132%, respectively.

    These figures are absurdly infinitesimal when compared to the 230,000-280,000 deaths caused by iatrogenesis in medical treatment as reported by the Institute of Medicine,21 or from just the use of NSAID medications, producing 10,000-20,000 fatalities from multiple organ systems adversely affected—in the United States alone.22-24  Even what has been regarded as the more relatively benign COX-2 inhibitors and acetaminophen medications have been described to generate serious GI, cardiovascular, and hepatic problems at rates an order of magnitude greater than the side-effects attributed to spinal manipulation.25-29

    A more complete accounting of the extremely low relative risks of spinal manipulation compared to medical interventions for back and neck pain has been presented elsewhere.30-32  Given far too little consideration by Ernst is the fact that the majority of vertebral artery dissections have been found to be spontaneous, possibly exacerbated by high levels of endogenous homocysteine.32,33  Final credibility to this argument is the fact that there was no evidence of excess risk of vertebrobasilar artery stroke associated with chiropractic care as compared to the primary care administered by allopathic physicians.34  This fact alone should do much to dismiss the unmistakable implications from Ernst’s argument that at least a large proportion of the deaths listed could be attributed to chiropractic care.

  2. Lack of risk-benefit analysis:

    A balanced view of any healthcare intervention needs to make use of risk-benefit ratios in order that a fair and balanced analysis be presented.  There is no such mention of any benefits in Ernst’s current publication,1 as is the case for any of his other papers as cited.7-14  This is in spite of the fact that the clear benefits of spinal manipulation as administered by chiropractors have been already discussed.2-6  Simple mathematics dictates that a denominator [benefits] which is set to zero will yield a risk-benefit ratio of infinity, regardless as to how infinitesimal the numerator [risks] may be.

  3. Incompleteness and carelessness of review:

    In addition to the substantial lack of considerations pointed out above, it is peculiar to hear of Ernst’s assertion that his review is “systematic” when in fact through 1985 it accounts for just 16 deaths, whereas 24 through the same period were carefully described in a review of 257 cases that Ernst himself cited in his bibliography in discussing a different subject.35  Even more worrisome is the fact that in the same reference Terrett clearly points out that the majority of the cases of vertebrobasilar artery accidents were mistakenly—often deliberately—attributed to chiropractors instead of the myriad of other practitioners responsible for the adverse events.35  This point was not only ignored by Ernst but deliberately distorted to suggest that more chiropractors (17) were responsible for complications than medical practitioners (9), naturopaths (1), or physiotherapists (0).1  To make matters worse, there is more recent data which clearly demonstrates that vertebrobasilar artery accidents are more likely to occur in the hands of nonchiropractors rather than actual chiropractors.36  Finally, there is an inaccuracy in this actual citation itself35, in which the entity responsible for its publication is listed in Ernst’s article as “JCMIC” instead of “NCMIC.”  All of these indications suggest that the article by Ernst falls far short of what would normally be considered as a carefully prepared, scholarly systematic review worthy of publication in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature.

    What is peculiar is an apparent disclaimer by Ernst himself, in which he states in his article that “Obviously, the present article is not aimed at providing incidence figures; this would require a different methodology entirely. To date, no reliable incidence data are available.”  Under these circumstances, one has to question how Ernst ever was able to invoke the term “systematic” in the first place.

  4. Signs of bias and blanket statements:

    Statements to the effect that “when carefully evaluating the known facts, one does arrive at the conclusion that causality [of arterial dissection] is at least likely.”  Unfortunately, we are never privy to what the “facts” may be, in addition to being given a statement that is contradicted by both the mechanistic32,33 and actual patient data34 supporting spontaneity discussed earlier.  Finally, Ernst’s assertion that “the risks of chiropractic neck manipulations far outweigh their benefits” is clearly unsupported by the data in the literature with the complete ignorance of any benefits or risk-benefit ratios as argued earlier.

    For these reasons, one must greet Ernst’s current article with extreme skepticism and hope that the host of its inaccuracies does not misguide the journal’s readership. It is certainly regrettable to contemplate the prospect of having this error-prone paper emulated in future citations in the scientific literature for years to come.
Share this:  Add to TwitterAdd to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to GoogleAdd to LinkedInAdd to MixxAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to Yahoo


4 Comments on:

Death by Chiropractic: Another Misbegotten Review

Discuss this article in the ChiroACCESS Forums
ChiroACCESS Forums

Re:Death by Chiropractic: Another Misbegotten Review


by dr_rupert   (7/28/2010 10:57:08 AM)
 It is equally surprising that a peer reviewed journal would accept such a biased and poorly prepared manuscript for publication.

Re:Death by Chiropractic: Another Misbegotten Review


by smithdl2   (7/29/2010 1:23:51 PM)
I hope Dr. Rosner has submitted this piece as a letter to the editor to the International Journal of Clinical Practice.

Re:Death by Chiropractic: Another Misbegotten Review


by dgreene   (8/5/2010 12:10:02 AM)
Multiple studies have shown the risks of cervical manipulation to be extremely low, between 1 and 3 in a million. As I used to tell my patients prior to vertebroplasty, the risks are very small but very real. And that's the point actually. Cervical manipulation works well according to the literature, and the key is advising the patient of the risk. I discuss the risks in my blog at http://www.preferredpaincenter.com

Re:Death by Chiropractic: Another Misbegotten Review


by pisanidc   (11/4/2011 8:09:49 PM)
The evidence linking cervical manipulation to death is patchy, if anything. Check out<a href="http://intouchwellnesscenter.com"> our website.</a>

References

1.   

Ernst E. Deaths after chiropractic: A review of published cases. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2010; 64(8): 1162-1165.



2.   

Shekelle PG, Adams AH, Chassin MR, Hurwitz EL, Brook RH: Spinal manipulation for low-back pain. Annals of Internal Medicine 1992; 117: 590-598.



3.   

van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions. Spine 1997; 22(18): 2128-2156.



4.   

Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans RI, Bouter LM. Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: A systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Spine Journal 2004; 4: 335-356.



5.   

Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans R, Kawchuk G, Dagenais S. Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization. The Spine Journal 2008; 8: 213-225.



6.   

Lawrence DJ, Meeker W, Branson R, Bronfort G, Cates JR, Haas M, Haneline M, Micozzi M, Updyke W, Mootz R, Triano JJ, Hawk C. Chiropractic management of low back pain and low back-related leg complaints: A literature synthesis. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 2008; 31(9): 659-674.



7.   

Ernst E, Canter PH. A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2006; 99: 189-193.



8.   

Ernst E. Chiropractors’ use of X-rays. British Journal of Radiology 1998; 71(843): 249-251.



9.   

Ernst E, Assendelft WJ. Chiropractic for low back pain: We don’t know whether it does more good than harm [Editorial]. British Medical Journal 1998; 317(7152): 160.



10.   

Ernst E. Cervical manipulation: Is it really safe? International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine 1994; 6: 145-149.



11.   

Ernst E. Vascular accidents after neck manipulation: Cause or consequence? International Journal of Clinical Practice 2010; 64(6): 6730677.



12.   

Ernst E. Chiropractic: A critical evaluation. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2008; 35: 544-562.



13.   

Ernst E. Cerebrovascular accidents associated with spinal manipulation. Physical Therapy Review 2004; 9: 5-15.



14.   

Ernst E. Chiropractic spinal manipulation for infant colic: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2009; 63(9): 1351-1353.



15.   

Rosner AL Chiropractic: More good than harm or vice versa? Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1999; 22(4): 250-253.



16.   

Bronfort G, Haas M, Moher D, Bouter LM, van Tulder MW, Triano J, Assendelft WJJ, Evans RL, Dagenais S, Rosner A. Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted. Chiropractic and Osteopathy 2006; 14: 14; doi: 10:1186/1746-1340-14-14.



17.   

Morley J, Rosner AL, Redwood D. A case study of the misrepresentation of the scientific literature: Recent reviews of chiropractic. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2001; 7(1): 65-78; 79-82.



18.   

Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M. Risk factors and precipitating neck movements causing vertebrobasilar artery dissection after cervical trauma and spinal manipulation. Spine 1999; 24(8): 785-794.



19.   

Haldeman S, Carey P, Townsend M, Papadopoulos C. Clinical perception of the risk of vertebral artery dissection after cervical manipulation. The Spine Journal 2002; 2(5): 334-342.



20.   

Thiel H, Bolton J. Estimates of the number of treatment visits involving cervical spine manipulation conducted by members of the British and Scottish Chiropractic Associations over a one-year period. Clinical Chiropractic 2004; 7(4): 163-167.



21.   

Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook R. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Quarterly 1998; 76: 517-563.



22.   

Wolfe MM, Lichtenstein DR, Singh G. Gastrointestinal toxicity of nonsteroidal antiflammatory drugs. New England Journal of Medicine 1999; 340(245): 1888-1899.



23.   

Gabriel SE, Jaakimainen L, Bombardier C. Risk for serious gastrointestinal complications related to the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: A meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 1991; 115: 787-796.



24.   

Ament PW, Childers RS. Prophylaxis and treatment of NSAID-induced gastropathy. American Family Physician 1997; 55(4): 1323-1326, 1331-1332.



25.   

Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Burgos-Vargas R, Davis B, Day R, Ferraz MB, Hawkey CJ, Hochberg MC, Kvien TK, Schnitzer TJ. Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of refecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 343: 1520-1528.



26.   

Important drug safety information: Vioxx [Dear Healthcare Professional Letter]. Point-Claire, Dorval [QC]: Merck Frost Canada; 2002 April 15

 [ Full-Text Link ]

27.   

Important drug safety information: Celebrex [Dear Healthcare Professional Letter]. Missisauga [ON]: Pharmacia Canada Inc.; 2002 May 13.

 [ Full-Text Link ]

28.   

Konstam MA, Weir MR, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Sperlin RS, Barr E, Gertz BJ. Cardiovascular thrombotic events in controlled clinical trials of rofecoxib. Circulation 2001; 104: 2280-2288.



29.   

Whitcomb DC, Block GD. Association of acetaminophen hepatotoxicity with fasting and ethanol use. Journal of the American Medical Association 1994; 272(23): 1845-1850.



30.   

Dabbs V, Lauretti W. A risk assessment of cervical manipulation vs NSAIDs for the treatment of neck pain. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1995; 18(8): 530-536.



31.   

Rome PL. Perspective: An overview of comparative considerations of cerebrovascular accidents. Chiropractic Journal of Australia 1999; 29(3): 87-102.



32.   

Rosner A. CVA risks in perspective. Manuelle Medizin 2003; 3: 1-9



33.   

Rosner A. Spontaneous cervical artery dissections: Another perspective. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 2004; 27(2): 124-132.



34.   

Cassidy JD, Boyle E, Cote P, He Y, Hogg-Johnson S, Silver FL, Bondy SJ. Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: Results of a population-based case-control and case-crossover study. Spine 2008; 33 [Suppl]: S176-S183.



35.   

Terrett AGL. Current Concepts in Vertebrobasilar Complications following Spinal Manipulation, 2nd Edition. West Des Moines, IA: National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Company, 2001.



36.   

Reuter U, Hamling M, Kavuk I, Einhaupl EK, Schielke E for the German vertebral artery dissection study group. Journal of Neurology March 2, 2006