The Association Between Cervical Spine Manipulation and Carotid Artery Dissection: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Controversy surrounds the safety of cervical spine manipulation. Ischemic stroke secondary to cervical spine manipulation is a hypothesized adverse event. In Canada, the seriousness of these events and their perceived association to cervical spine manipulation has led some members of the public to call for a ban of the procedure. The primary objective of this study was to determine the incidence of internal carotid artery (ICA) dissection after cervical spine manipulation in patients who experience neck pain and its associated disorders. The secondary objective was to determine whether cervical spine manipulation is associated with an increased risk of ICA dissection in patients with neck pain, upper back pain, or headaches. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Alternative Health, AMED, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and EMBASE from 1970 to November 2012. Two independent reviewers used standardized criteria to screen the eligibility of articles. We considered cohort studies, case-control studies, and randomized clinical trials that addressed our objectives. We planned to critically appraise eligible articles using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network methodology. RESULTS: We did not find any epidemiologic studies that measured the incidence of cervical spine manipulation and ICA dissection. Similarly, we did not find any studies that determined whether cervical spine manipulation is associated with ICA dissection. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ICA dissection after cervical spine manipulation is unknown. The relative risk of ICA dissection after cervical spine manipulation compared with other health care interventions for neck pain, back pain, or headache is also unknown. Although several case reports and case series raise the hypothesis of an association, we found no epidemiologic studies that validate this hypothesis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".