For the second time in less than a year,1,2 the Wall Street Journal has challenged the value of chiropractic. On June 3, an article in the "Personal Journal" section of the Journal discussed a meta-analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine3 that evaluated the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for treating back pain.
The Journal article, "Study Questions Chiropractic Care,"4 included several quotes from Paul Shekelle, MD, PhD, one of the study's authors, who noted that the study found manipulation of the spine was "no more effective" than the treatment options offered by other providers.
"We aren't saying that spinal manipulation isn't useful, but it's no more effective than other kinds of care that medical doctors or physical therapists can do," Dr. Shekelle told the Journal. Ironically, he was the lead author of the 1992 RAND report that supported the use of spinal manipulation for low-back pain.
In the Journal article, George B. McClelland, DC, a spokesman for the American Chiropractic Association, took issue with the study, pointing to several design flaws. He also criticized the way the results of the study have been interpreted by the popular press, emphasizing that coverage of the story could have "a negative influence" on the chiropractic profession.
"Even if spinal manipulation is no better than other interventions, if it is equally effective, and has less potential serious side effects and greater patient satisfaction, what's wrong with that?" noted Dr. McClelland.
What the Journal failed to include in its article was any mention of the specific details of the study. First, a review of the Annals paper revealed that the meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy, not chiropractic specifically. Second, of the 39 studies indexed in the analysis, only 14 specified spinal manipulation performed by chiropractors; the majority of the studies specified outcomes based on manipulation performed by medical doctors, physical therapists or osteopaths. Moreover, as Dr. McClelland alluded to, the analysis did not conclude that spinal manipulation was ineffective, but that it was equally as effective as other therapies for treating back pain.
While "chiropractic" was prominent in the title of the WSJ article, the meta-analysis itself never really singled out chiropractic specifically. This is a pattern we continue to see in the media: If the research is positive for "manipulation," the popular press (if they even decide to run an article) extol the benefits of "manipulation"; if the research has the slightest appearance of being negative, they condemn "chiropractic."
Sadly, the Wall Street Journal also seems guilty of this backhanded bashing of our profession.References
When sports chiropractors first appeared at the Olympic Games in the 1980s, it was alongside individual athletes who had experienced the benefits of chiropractic care in their training and recovery processes at home. Fast forward to Paris 2024, where chiropractic care was available in the polyclinic for all athletes, and the attitude has now evolved to recognize that “every athlete deserves access to sports chiropractic."
It is estimated that 61% of patients with CTS avoid taking surgical options due to postoperative complications and costly surgical procedures. Chiropractic care offers a comprehensive and effective treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome, addressing the condition from multiple angles. Recent studies also have unveiled a game-changing adjunct to chiropractic treatments for CTS: nerve flossing.
Some doctors thrive in a personality-based clinic and have a loyal following no matter what services or equipment they offer, but for most chiropractic offices who are trying to grow and expand, new equipment purchases help us stay relevant and continue to service our client base in the best, most up-to-date manner possible. So, regarding equipment purchasing: should you lease, get a bank loan, or pay cash?
