Neurological Complications of Cervical Spine Manipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article by Clare Stevinson and others (March 2000 JRSM, pp. 107-110) demonstrates why research should be undertaken only by those who understand the field they are investigating. Throughout, they trivialize the role of manipulation and quote selectively: an important omission is the review paper by Haldeman1, who as a neurologist and a trained manipulator is well qualified to comment. Manipulation physicians have been aware of the complications of spinal manipulation therapy for more than five decades2. The real difficulty has been in identifying suspect techniques; more than fifty cervical techniques are commonly used in today's practice. Stevinson et al. refer to a survey of California neurologists. The 91 patients reported in this paper3 did not, as they claim, have neurological defects only after cervical manipulation; this was the number who had defects after manipulation in any area—cervical, thoracic or lumbar. The US authors recognized the weaknesses of their study, including inability to verify responses and lack of information on pre-existing neurological details such as myelopathy, cauda equina syndrome, anticoagulant therapy, etc. In the British study, twenty-four respondents reported remembering 35 cases of serious neurological complication but only 16 of these cases could be remembered in enough detail to give even a scant description. A further case is totally erased from the paper. In only 2 cases is the manipulating profession identified— osteopathy and chiropractic, both professions that one of the authors, Professor Ernst, has confronted in the past. In my chiropractic clinic I regularly treat patients with serious neurological defects, including absent reflexes; these patients are always referred back to their GP for orthopaedic assessment but many of them resolve before this assessment. At present we are treating a patient who has clear upper motor neuron signs and symptoms; we suspect cervical myelopathy, and with much coaxing she has now consented to return to the hospital. When she does show up at the hospital, will she be remembered by the consultant as a cervical myelopathy who had been treated by a chiropractor or as someone who had been correctly referred back to the GP? Before assuming a causative relationship, any investigator must examine the treating practitioner's case notes. To gain anything out of a long-term prospective study, Professor Ernst and his colleagues must recruit onto their team manipulative experts from the four main fields. Some of the offending techniques have already been identified and the manipulative schools now avoid teaching rotary techniques that include cervical extension. The Institute for Musculoskeletal Research and Clinical Implementation is planning a multidisciplinary prospective trial using Canadian Stroke Consortium data as a pilot study. I am sure that they would be happy to discuss any future research if the aim was to prevent these mostly avoidable problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".