Chiropractic for high blood pressure?

What is your basis for concluding that the results were due to selection bias?

Sample size far too small to be representative.

Very small magnitude of the measured effect. (Not clinically significant.)

Magnitude consistent with placebo studies.

Study not replicated with a large enough cohort (n > 1000) by others.

Other studies that show no effect whatsoever.
 
Sample size far too small to be representative.

Very small magnitude of the measured effect. (Not clinically significant.)

Magnitude consistent with placebo studies.

Study not replicated with a large enough cohort (n > 1000) by others.

Other studies that show no effect whatsoever.
Well said.

I would add the known fact that the chiropractic theory of subluxations is known to be false, so there is no reason to think this approach should work. I realize that's not a comment on the study results, but it points out that the claim is extraordinary, so we need evidence that is more substantial, not marginal.
 
And it's a good thing Palmer's silly ideas are wrong. Otherwise, every time you flexed your neck or back, there would be all sorts of changes in bodily functions. Kidney failure because you bend a certain way, ear infections when you reach for something, etc.

Sorry to reply to myself, but it's too late to tack this on the post.

If bending and flexing the spine different ways had all these effects on organ systems, then these people should exhibit lots of strange symptoms.
 
Well said.

I would add the known fact that the chiropractic theory of subluxations is known to be false, so there is no reason to think this approach should work. I realize that's not a comment on the study results, but it points out that the claim is extraordinary, so we need evidence that is more substantial, not marginal.

I'm willing to believe that an accidental pinching of a nerve COULD have an effect. You can document similar things. But this study does not reveal anything other than the possible need for another study.
 
I came across the following research in a debate about chiropractic. The claim is from a study by George Bakris that their back cracking can reduce high blood pressure.

http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/news/20070316/chiropractic-cuts-blood-pressure

Now this isn't exactly the far out end of chiropractic like treating ADHD, autism and cancer, but I wondered whether anybody knew anything about it and whether it in any way stood up.

My guess is "...promising results, too early to say, needs to be replicated in a large study...", but I'd greatly appreciate any insight the forum may be able to provide.

I finished reading the full study. The treatment effect is quite large. It is inadequate to recommend treatment based on this study, but it is adequate to justify a larger study. There is mention of planning a larger study, but I can't find any mention of a registered clinical trial. It's been more than two years. I wonder what the status is.

Even if the results are reproducible, though, it would be a stretch to consider that it was due to chiropracty. The description of any bony changes seems trivial, and it doesn't sound like the chiropractor was blinded. The mechanism would require further investigation.

Linda
 
Last edited:
Even if the results are reproducible, though, it would be a stretch to consider that it was due to chiropracty.
What's the alternative explanation?

The description of any bony changes seems trivial, and it doesn't sound like the chiropractor was blinded.
How would the chiropractor not being blinded explain the significantly lower blood pressure results?
 
What's the alternative explanation?

How would the chiropractor not being blinded explain the significantly lower blood pressure results?

The question is whether or not there were any alterations in the position of the atlas to account for the change in blood pressure and whether the effect of the manipulation was anything that would reasonably relate to the ideas behind chiropractic. The changes in the atlas position and other parameters measured by the chiropractor were trivial and somewhat nonsensical (as others have pointed out, these trivial changes are dwarfed by normal neck movements). It makes sense to look at whether the manipulation had a more substantial effect elsewhere, after you've confirmed that this wasn't a fluke.

Blinding matters, since measures like leg-length discrepancies are notoriously unreliable, making it easy for expectation to influence the measurement.

Linda
 
I came across the following research in a debate about chiropractic. The claim is from a study by George Bakris that their back cracking can reduce high blood pressure.

http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/news/20070316/chiropractic-cuts-blood-pressure

Now this isn't exactly the far out end of chiropractic like treating ADHD, autism and cancer, but I wondered whether anybody knew anything about it and whether it in any way stood up.

My guess is "...promising results, too early to say, needs to be replicated in a large study...", but I'd greatly appreciate any insight the forum may be able to provide.
Illuminator

Blue Wode tweeted about a blog posting I made recently discussing HOW spinal manipulation seems to impact blood pressure:

The article at Chiro DOT Org is titled:
"Why Chiropractic Care Reduces Blood Pressure"

The WebMD and other video links are all dated, because they all relate to this article:
Journal of Human Hypertension 2007 (May); 21 (5): 347–352

the Full Text of that article is available, if you follow the links to the "Chiropractic and Blood Pressure Page". Sorry, but the moderator only permits URLs after you have posted more than I have.

In reality, it is not unreasonable that manipulation could have an effect. That is vastly different than stating that it DOES. So far the preliminary research was interesting, and there is a current project at Palmer College's Research department which is comparing 3 different upper cervical "specific" techniques, to see if one style is different (in results) than another.

Although this project could be unpopular if one technique was markedly better than another...imagine how you'd feel if your favorite scored poorly...but these are the types of studies any profession needs to perform if they want to KNOW the answer.

I am not sure why people like Blue Wode expend so much energy trying to make chiropractic look questionable or insane. Every profession has its lunatic fringe, but they do not really represent the bulk of any profession. Mine is no exception.

I hope these materials can contribute towards your understanding of this interesting topic.

Frank M. Painter, D.C.
 
I finished reading the full study. The treatment effect is quite large. It is inadequate to recommend treatment based on this study, but it is adequate to justify a larger study. There is mention of planning a larger study, but I can't find any mention of a registered clinical trial. It's been more than two years. I wonder what the status is.

Even if the results are reproducible, though, it would be a stretch to consider that it was due to chiropracty. The description of any bony changes seems trivial, and it doesn't sound like the chiropractor was blinded. The mechanism would require further investigation.

Linda
Hi Linda

Great points. Blinding is a reasonable expectation in a drug trial, but how do you blind patient or doctors in a physical medicine procedure like manipulation? Can you imagine devising a placebo form of massage that could fool both the provider and the client? Good luck!

I had some e-mail contact with the British researcher Jim Deuchars, and he was fascinated by the Journal of Human Hypertension study because he had just discovered a neurologic connection that explained why cervical adjusting could impact blood pressure. He kindly sent me the Full-Text article:
The Neurochemically Diverse Intermedius Nucleus of the Medulla as a Source of Excitatory and Inhibitory Synaptic Input to the Nucleus Tractus Solitarii
J Neurosci 2007 (Aug 1); 27 (31): 8324-8333

If you have any suggestions about how DCs can create a reasonable form of blinding, or a credible placebo form of manipulation, researchers around the world will eat from your hands!

Cheers!
 
Blue Man

I love how you slip the knife in so smoothly, with disrespectful cracks like:
"this is a study frequently cited by the general run of chiropractors to justify their routine upper cervical neck-cracking."

I'm curious what YOU do for a living? Are you a doctor, a researcher, or merely a professional skeptic?

The comment that only NUCCA could get those results is unfounded. Case reports going back 40+ years have noted significant drops in BP using a variety of UC techniques, and currently Palmer College is comparing 3 different upper cervical (UC) techniques. I can’t wait to see the results.

I also agree with the MD...this one trial should not cause a medical stampede of referrals to chiropractors. They need more evidence. Many people seem to tolerate their BP meds, but what about the sizeable percentage of patients who have serious adverse effects, or minimal results with those meds? Are you so pro-medicine, or anti-alternative that you'd like to deny them a chance for significant relief with chiropractic?

Either way, more trials will be run as time rolls by, and I wonder how much proof it will take to quiet a professional skeptic like yourself?

Frank
 
Either way, more trials will be run as time rolls by, and I wonder how much proof it will take to quiet a professional skeptic like yourself?

This question wasn't asked of me, and I don't consider myself a professional skeptic, but if the data are proven robust in future trials, then... the data are robust, and our understanding should change. And I hope they are proven robust. Then again, I hope for a lot of things.
 
Blue Man

I love how you slip the knife in so smoothly, with disrespectful cracks like:
"this is a study frequently cited by the general run of chiropractors to justify their routine upper cervical neck-cracking."

I'm curious what YOU do for a living? Are you a doctor, a researcher, or merely a professional skeptic?

The comment that only NUCCA could get those results is unfounded. Case reports going back 40+ years have noted significant drops in BP using a variety of UC techniques, and currently Palmer College is comparing 3 different upper cervical (UC) techniques. I can’t wait to see the results.

I also agree with the MD...this one trial should not cause a medical stampede of referrals to chiropractors. They need more evidence. Many people seem to tolerate their BP meds, but what about the sizeable percentage of patients who have serious adverse effects, or minimal results with those meds? Are you so pro-medicine, or anti-alternative that you'd like to deny them a chance for significant relief with chiropractic?

Either way, more trials will be run as time rolls by, and I wonder how much proof it will take to quiet a professional skeptic like yourself?

Frank


Probably none, as only a favourable risk/benefit profile would be acceptable to me - and I can't see that happening in view of the following:
http://www.ebm-first.com/chiropractic/risks.html
 
Either way, more trials will be run as time rolls by, and I wonder how much proof it will take to quiet a professional skeptic like yourself?

Frank

I suffer from hbp. How much longer do I have to wait for these trials? If this worked it would sure shut up this skeptic. Of course I'd have to weight risk/reward . . .
 
A back massage would certainly help you relax, and relaxation temporarily reduces your blood pressure.

Other than that, no.
 
Blue Man

I see you continue to avoid identifying yourself, your profession, or your interest in this matter, other than being the manager of a biased EBM website. How cowardly of you.

Like your forefather (Dr. Steven Barrett) you avoid responding to revealing questions about your stake in the matter, while dissembling with the same old stale paranoia rants about how chiropractic is a dangerous procedure.

Meanwhile, you ignore the facts:

1. People come to chiropractors because they suffer from neck pain, headaches or low back pain. They have been doing this in increasing numbers, even though folks like you try to paint my profession as a quasi-religion. Much is made of DD Palmer's employment history, as though the fact that he had been a greengrocer automatically invalidated his ability to observe, think or create. Again, I ask YOU...what is your profession and training...does your training place you above this humble "fish peddler"? Are you other than an online dilettante with a hunger for attention? Inquiring minds want to know.



2. If this same group of people were forced to seek "evidence-based" medical care for their complaints, here's what they would be offered:

non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)
muscle relaxants
opioids
antidepressants, and eventual
spinal surgery


A very recent meta-analysis by the Dutch Institute for Health Care Improvement, and published in the European Spine Journal reviewed 17 randomized controlled trials for pain treatments: NSAIDs (n = 4), antidepressants (n = 5), and opioids (n = 8). Amazingly, no studies were found for muscle relaxers. Their conclusions were that NSAIDs and opioids “seem to lead to a somewhat higher relief in pain on the short term, as compared to placebo” (or no treatment at all!), “in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain, and that both types of medication show more adverse effects than placebo”. (What an elegant understatement that is!). [1] Even the least-supportive studies on spinal manipulation found that chiropractic care is "at least" as effective as pain meds, while many others find that chiropractic care is orders of magnitude superior to "usual medical management". Our Blog (www dot chiro dot org) is loaded with such studies.

Meanwhile, it has been shown that 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone. The numbers of all NSAID deaths would be overwhelming, yet the scope of this problem is generally under-appreciated in your beloved medical literature. [2]

<HR>

3. A most recent in-depth review, published in the Feb 15, 2008 Spine Journal [3] was completed by members of the Spine Decade Task Force. It reviewed 10 years worth of hospital records, involving 100 million person-years. Those records revealed no increase in vertebral artery dissection risk with chiropractic, compared with medical management, and further stated that “increased risks of VBA stroke associated with chiropractic and PCP visits is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection seeking care before their stroke.”

I know you have railed against this article, claiming a superior knowledge...but again, what is YOUR training, that you claim to know more (or better) than a vast, interdisciplinary task force organized by the World Health Organization? You claim YOU know better than the Spine Journal, the "bible" of orthopedic surgeons? Hubris, plain and simple.

<HR>

Finally... if chiropractic had ACTUALLY been PROVEN to be dangerous, why would our Malpractice Insurance rates be the LOWEST of any "healing" profession? Do you also claim to know more than the the Insurance Industry?

I would provide direct links to the following supporting articles, but I have not posted here long enough to be permitted to insert URLs into my comments.

Blue Man...you "appear" to be providing an evidence-based opinion, supposedly to protect the public from the predations of my profession.

I am not so sure. Like your forefather, I suspect your primary motivation is self-promotion (who else has the TIME to post thousands of Tweets?).

REFERENCES:

1. A systematic review on the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for chronic non-specific low-back pain
Eur Spine J. 2011 (Jan); 20 (1): 40–50 ~ FULL TEXT

2. Recent Considerations in Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Gastropathy
American Journal of Medicine 1998 (Jul 27); ; 105 (1B): 31S-38S

3. Risk of Vertebrobasilar Stroke and Chiropractic Care: Results of a Population-based Case-control and Case-crossover Study
Spine 2008 (Feb 15); 33 (4 Suppl): S176–183
 
Last edited:
Blue Man

I see you continue to avoid identifying yourself, your profession, or your interest in this matter, other than being the manager of a biased EBM website. How cowardly of you.

Who someone is or what they do is not relevant to the facts. It is a rule of this forum to address the argument, not the arguer. You only undermine your own position by attempting to divert the discussion to irrelevant areas.
 

Back
Top Bottom