List All News Items
Sign
up for FCER's The Week in Chiropractic--Now FREE
|
|
|
FCER
Research Release
VAD
Following Cervical Manipulation:
D.C. vs M.D. Experiences Affect Perception of Risk
January
13, 2003
Contact:
Robin R. Merrifield
1304
Perry Ave., Bremerton WA 98310
Phone:
800-343-0549 or 360-478-2716
Fax:
360-478-0834 E-Mail: FCERedit@aol.com
Des Moines, Iowa — Ask a Doctor of Chiropractic and a
neurologist what a patient’s risk of stroke following cervical
manipulation is and the answers given will likely differ greatly.
Chiropractic estimates are at approximately 0.2 per million adjustments,
whereas medical literature has the risk at about 1 per 500,000
adjustments.
In an effort to examine the role of bias in these
estimations, Scott Haldeman, D.C., M.D., Ph.D., and Paul Carey, D.C.,
Murray Townsend, D.C, and Costa Papadopoulos, MHA, CHE, studied the
perceived incidence of vertebral artery dissection (VAD) from both the
chiropractic and neurologist points of view.
Examination of the database of the Canadian Chiropractic
Protective Association (CCPA, which provides malpractice insurance for 85%
of chiropractors in Canada) for the period 1988 to 1997 found 23 cases of
VAD. Retrospective review of these cases and a survey of chiropractors
suggests an estimated 134,466,765 cervical manipulations were performed
during the 10-year period. Records from these reported VAD cases indicates
that in a 30 year practice, only one in 48 chiropractors would be aware of
a vascular incident following cervical manipulation. In contrast,
examination of the records show that these 23 VAD patients saw a total of
216 physicians, including 69 neurologists.
The researchers concluded that "the difference in the
number of chiropractors . . . and neurologists . . . in active practice
and the fact that each patient who has a stroke following manipulation
will likely be seen by only one chiropractor but by 3 or more neurologists
partly explains the difference in experience and the perception of risk of
these two professions. This selection or referral bias is important in
shaping the clinical opinions of the various disciplines and distorts
discussion on the true incidence of these complications of cervical
manipulation."
It is important to note that this study was not an attempt
to define the risk of stroke following manipulation. Rather it is an
examination of the differences in perception.
The study was published in The Spine Journal,
September 2002. Reprints of the full article may be requested from Paul
Carey, D.C., at pfcarey@golden.net
or fax a request to (519) 273-4161.
Return to STROKE
|