MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1781478633 · doi:10.1177/014107680109400627

Neurological Complications of Cervical Spine Manipulation

2001· letter· en· W1781478633 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Cashley, John K. Paterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2001
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical spineSPINE (molecular biology)MedicineCervical vertebraeComputer scienceSurgeryWorld Wide WebBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Society of MedicineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207