how do know whether to see physio or chiropractor?

wexpat girl

for a back prob - how to know which to see? have never understood this.
thanks

tallaght01

I would only see a physio, because you can almost guarantee they're not quacks.

That's just my opinion, though.

406C

Does that mean you consider chiropractic to be quackery? Really?

wexpat girl

tallaght01 wrote: »

I would only see a physio, because you can almost guarantee they're not quacks.

That's just my opinion, though.

ok, that's a start! thanks

Bob the Builder

I dunno. A lot of people say that chiro's are witch doctors, but i've been to chiro a few times (a very well qualified yank in that field actually to be more precise), and he's pretty good. (EDIT) Whereas I had been to a doctor the previous day, he just gave me anti-biotics, where as the chiro dude actually did work on the spasm (in my neck). Whilst he didn't fix it immediatley, he did speed up recovery. (/EDIT)

Went to another once, and i went in with a spasm in my neck, and came out with both a neck spasm and a pain in my lower back.

I always found physio to be more of a proven theory though. You can actually feel something happening when they're working on you, and you often leave feeling that it was more worth the money.

But imo, both professions are a rip-off. And they feed off people hurting themselves and needing to get it sorted asap, no matter what the cost.

406C

Bob the Builder wrote: »

A lot of people say that chiro's are witch doctors

I think this is a mad situation. I searched through this forum for chiropractic related stuff and found mostly supposition and predujudice, along with an unsupported claim or two and I was surprised at the attitudes on the forum to chiropractors. I think those here not knowing much about chiropractors should go meet one or two.

I have found competent physios and chiropractors to be good and use both. A chiropractor will get on with the job and usually has access to xrays whilst physios dont. Chiropractors are more competent manipulators and are much better trained in manipulation whilst physios are more attendant to the muscle ligament tendon failures that accompany back pain.

missannik

406C wrote: »

I have found competent physios and chiropractors to be good and use both. A chiropractor will get on with the job and usually has access to xrays whilst physios dont. Chiropractors are more competent manipulators and are much better trained in manipulation whilst physios are more attendant to the muscle ligament tendon failures that accompany back pain.

Straight off the bat- I don't think too highly of Chiros and its based on the fact that they manipulate. I just don't like the thought of it. In my view once you start manipulating something then when does it end?!! At least with Physios they teach you ways to manage the issue at hand, usually with exercises to strength surrounding areas. With a Chiro you keep having to go back to get it "fixed." Physios do have access to Xrays- if they are in private practice they have the authority to order them.

406C

missannik wrote: »

Straight off the bat- I don't think too highly of Chiros and its based on the fact that they manipulate.

Are you for real? what about osteopaths? medical professionals who use manipulation?

missannik wrote: »

I just don't like the thought of it. In my view once you start manipulating something then when does it end?!!

Are you for real?

missannik wrote: »

At least with Physios they teach you ways to manage the issue at hand, usually with exercises to strength surrounding areas.

I agree with this for the most part.

missannik wrote: »

With a Chiro you keep having to go back to get it "fixed."

yes - usually because there is a long term problem or one has to use a layman's term 'put one's back out again.'

missannik wrote: »

Physios do have access to Xrays- if they are in private practice they have the authority to order them.

Not sure of how it is in Australia but as far as I know physiotherapists do not have prescription rights nor are they trained to read them.


.

missannik

Yes I am for real. You don't have to agree with my views, nor do I wish to change anyone's opinions of Chiros, I just thought I should be honest about it. I have no issues with doctors using manipulation- but in this case would doctors actually manipulate someones back? I have serious doubts about the term "putting one's back out"- so basically the surrounding structures are weak and all the Chiro does it put it back... if thats the case then go to a Physio to have the surrounding areas strengthened and the likelihood of it happening again will lessen. Things must be different in Ireland because private practice Physios can order Xrays and can read them... if they are complicated then they would refer them to a doctor.

Thoie

I always thought of chiros as quacks as well - particularly when a friend told me that one had, and I quote, "manipulated her aura" - it seems this comprised of waggling his hands near her, but not actually touching her *sigh*. Another acquaintance told me her chiro had told her she'd need at least 3 years of weekly visits, because "her legs weighed differently".

However after some neck and shoulder problems that just weren't getting sorted, I finally gave in and tried one - and landed lucky the first time by getting a well trained professional chiro who knew what he was doing, and wasn't trying to fleece me. On the initial consultation he took a full history of previous injuries, examined the area, and the muscles/bits that link into that area. He did two or three "manipulations", advised a cold compress, and then gave me a full sheet of exercises to do over the coming weeks. I went back to him a few times, then he said the rest was up to me, and to keep doing the exercises to prevent further problems in that area.

I've gone back to him a few times over the space of 8 years, and each time he sorts the problem without trying to persuade me that I need to see him all the time.

406C

Thoie wrote: »

I always thought of chiros as quacks as well - particularly when a friend told me that one had, and I quote, "manipulated her aura" - it seems this comprised of waggling his hands near her, but not actually touching her *sigh*. Another acquaintance told me her chiro had told her she'd need at least 3 years of weekly visits, because "her legs weighed differently".

eh ok LOL if I had heard that sort of thing on a regular basis I would have a different opinion of them too but then you must have heard some good or results must have spoken for themselves when you went on to attend one.

Besides it being last resort how did you actually choose your chiro? I think that might be beneficial to know.

406C

missannik wrote: »

Straight off the bat- I don't think too highly of Chiros and its based on the fact that they manipulate.

missannik wrote: »

I have no issues with doctors using manipulation

missannik wrote: »

I have serious doubts about the term "putting one's back out"

no doubt, its a laymans term...

missannik wrote: »

basically the surrounding structures are weak and all the Chiro does it put it back... if thats the case then go to a Physio to have the surrounding areas strengthened and the likelihood of it happening again will lessen.

that sounds reasonable unless you have some knowledge of the neurological stimulation of surrounding tissues using manipulation...although I always thought physio and chiro should not be mutually exclusive.

death1234567

If you do some research and find out about the origins of Chiropractice you'll see that's its quackery of the highest order. That's not to say that some current Chiro's don't incorporate "proper" treatment into their work and of course the placebo effect is widely documented. However if I was at death's door I wouldn't go to a Chiro-quack.

Wiki

406C

death1234567 wrote: »

If you do some research and find out about the origins of Chiropractice you'll see that's its quackery of the highest order.

I think this argument about basis and origins of a profesion or therapy is attributable to many forms of care and the term quackery used by the dominant provider of health to describe all others.

death1234567 wrote: »

That's not to say that some current Chiro's don't incorporate "proper" treatment into their work

I think this is what I am getting at and that it is more prevalent within the chiro profession than is attributed here

death1234567 wrote: »

and of course the placebo effect is widely documented.

even within the medical profession thank God

death1234567 wrote: »

However if I was at death's door I wouldn't go to a Chiro-quack.

death1234567 wrote: »

That's not to say that some current Chiro's don't incorporate "proper" treatment into their work

death1234567 wrote: »

Wiki

Checked that wiki post and to be honest I think I could have substituted the word acupuncture for chiropractic and it would have rang true...

I will end up my contribution here just by stating I have been surprised by the attitude here toward chiropractic given the few I have met here in Ireland appeared quite profesional, very knowledgeable, willing to work with others and had nothing but good to say about others...





.

Thoie

406C wrote: »

eh ok LOL if I had heard that sort of thing on a regular basis I would have a different opinion of them too but then you must have heard some good or results must have spoken for themselves when you went on to attend one.

Besides it being last resort how did you actually choose your chiro? I think that might be beneficial to know.

Well, no good results from those two friends

It was actually my GP suggested that I look at the Chiropractic Association of Ireland. This is a voluntary regulation if you see what I mean - it doesn't come under the auspices of the Medical Board, but it does at least guarantee that the chiropractor has studied a 4 year degree, as opposed to having just found their calling on a weekend course

Then I looked around and found a Sports Therapy place that had physiotherapists, sports massage specialists and a chiropractor. It's not foolproof, but I made a leap and assumed that qualified physiotherapists were unlikely to shack up with some nutter. As luck would have it, there was a small place within 3 minutes walk of where I was living at the time.

I went for the initial consultation, and was reassured by the no nonsense tone of the chiropractor, and his attention to detail. I had decided before going that no matter what he said, if he started waggling crystals or whatnot at me, I wasn't going back. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to name the "good" chiropractor here. Mods, if it is let me know and I'll give details of the decent guy.

For the record, I believe crystal waggling and aura tickling have their place - it's not that I object to them specifically. But so does going to mass and having a pedicure.

cltt97

Well, I have tried all three professions - physios, chiropractors and osteopaths and my opinon is that you have to try them all to see what works for you. I tried physio for a good while and while it helped a bit I didn't really see much progres (I had major lower back pain with a trapped nerve or something), then I went to an osteopath and he was brilliant. He then moved out of Dublin and I tried a chiropractor. Te first two I went to were a disaster but then I found a good clinic, which mainly has Australian chiropractors, and I find them the best. either way, I think it totally depends on the problem, and you need to educate yourself about your muscles and bones and go in there and be prepared to ask questions and do something to help yourself, too, none of those will actually fix you without you doing your part. But at the end of the day, there are good ones and bad ones in all three professions, like with everything else, and one shouldn't write off any of them based on one bad experience.

JuliusCaesar

cltt97 wrote: »

Well, I have tried all three professions - physios, chiropractors and osteopaths and my opinon is that you have to try them all to see what works for you. .............. But at the end of the day, there are good ones and bad ones in all three professions, like with everything else, and one shouldn't write off any of them based on one bad experience.

As a scientist, I want to know how evidence-based chiropractise is compared to osteopathy or physiotherapy.

Then I want to know about the particular practitioner.

linky

RobFowl

For what its worth physio is the best option IMO.
This is largely because Chartered physios are required to be registered and their training and title is governed bt legislation.
In this country chiropracters and osteopaths are not registered so you really have to check each one out individually to see if they are kosher.
Basically any one can call themselves a chiropracter or ospepath but Physios have to be certified by their professional body every year in order to call themselves a physio.

T-Square

I think Chiropractors are qualified in the USA, but in Ireland anybody can become a Chiropractor with littler effort.

In America, and Ireland, you have to study your butt off to become a physio.

AtomicHorror

I've seen fully certified Chiros in britain make the assertion that they can treat asthma and allergy. The claim has no basis in evidence. I hold a very dim view of their profession. Let the evidence speak or don't speak at all.

2Scoops

T-Square wrote: »

Ireland, you have to study your butt off to become a physio.

...4 year degree or 2 year masters degree?

SomeDose

I think in Ireland the 4yr undergrad degree is the only route to becoming a physio. In the UK the 2yr masters is also available to post-grad students.

T-Square

To be fair I thought it was more than that. Mea culpa.

Two years Masters yeah?
to you have to have a specific undergrad type of degree to get into physio?

406C

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

As a scientist, I want to know how evidence-based chiropractise is compared to osteopathy or physiotherapy.

what evidence base has osteopathy?

T-Square wrote: »

I think Chiropractors are qualified in the USA, but in Ireland anybody can become a Chiropractor with littler effort.

as I understand it Irish Chiropractors went to the Uk to train (there is no chiro college in Ireland) and it is a 5 year M.Sc having used to be compressed into a four year B.Sc - although there is no legislation they have a professional body.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I've seen fully certified Chiros in britain make the assertion that they can treat asthma and allergy. The claim has no basis in evidence.

Not sure about evidence base but this is one I can atest to albeit it is only anecdotal.

I know of a child whose parents brought him to a chiro for quite severe asthma. The child was on inhalers twice daily and as needed and during the winter would be hospitalised at least once, and this had been going on since the child was an infant. After a short period of chiro the child has little or no need for the inhalers although they still carry them.

The mother has a scoliosis and suffered regular (weekly) episodes of very severe back pain and now has none and the father an avid golfer swears by regular chiro improving his golf!

charlieroot

406C wrote: »

I know of a child whose parents brought him to a chiro for quite severe asthma. The child was on inhalers twice daily and as needed and during the winter would be hospitalised at least once, and this had been going on since the child was an infant. After a short period of chiro the child has little or no need for the inhalers although they still carry them.

The mother has a scoliosis and suffered regular (weekly) episodes of very severe back pain and now has none and the father an avid golfer swears by regular chiro improving his golf!

Nothing in the above the which can't be explained by regression/placebo effect. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Also, I still haven't seen any information about evidence based chiropathy. Is there any?

RobFowl

There are a good number of meta analysis on the cochrane database.
The one on manual therapy and asthma suggests there is insufficient evidence but "One small trial compared massage therapy with a relaxation control group and found significant differences in many of the lung function measures obtained. However, this trial had poor reporting characteristics and the data have yet to be confirmed."
Here is the link
http://search.cochrane.org/search?scso_colloquia_abstracts=colloquia_abstracts&client=my_collection&scso_evidence_aid=evidence_aid&access=p&scso_review_abstracts=Cochrane_reviews&lr=&ip=86.44.7.61&output=xml_no_dtd&restrict=review_abstracts&sub_site_name=Cochrane.org_search&filter=0&site=my_collection&q=chiropractic&ie=&oe=&btnG=Search&scso_registered_titles=registered_titles&scso_newsletters=newsletters&spell=1&scso_cochrane_org=whole_site&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cochrane.org%2Fsearch%2Fgoogle_mini_xsl%2Fcochrane_org.xsl&start=0

charlieroot

Thanks, doing exams at the moment but will have a read afterwards.

kaiser sauze

When I was 15 I was involved [as a passenger] in a bad accident.

I was attending a physiotherapist for two years and doing all the exercises, but I never felt like the underlying cause was being treated.

I went to a chiropractor and over the course of six months I was sorted.

I pop back every six-eighteen months and have a check up and I will never go to a physio again.

406C

charlieroot wrote: »

Nothing in the above the which can't be explained by regression/placebo effect.

this is true but knowing the people involved it is quite convincing and to be fair as for the palcebo effect we could say the same about many medical treatments every day which have a plausible explanation of effect but which really we don't really know...

charlieroot wrote: »

The plural of anecdote is not data.

again correct but more convincing..

charlieroot wrote: »

Also, I still haven't seen any information about evidence based chiropathy. Is there any?

I would also ask the same about all three: chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy (was this what was meant by chiropathy?) were is the evidence any of them are effective?

sensi-tive

Your Chartered Physio is licensed to work in state-run hospitals, for starters. The Chiro is not.

The Chiro may well take x-rays, if you complain of, for example, back pain. They may even x-ray the entire body from top of skull to base of spine, in one long x-ray.

However, any qualified radiologist (the experts in reading x-rays) will tell you that ordinary x-rays are pretty useless in diagnosing back problems. Most back problems are soft-tissue related, and soft tissue isn't visible on x-ray.

Furthermore, x-rays of the spine are a major cause of avoidable exposure of the general population to ionizing radiation.

Just because a Chiro may own an x-ray machine doesn't mean they should use it on you!!! May make more money for them, but you should consider the future generations!

Chiros will tell you that your spine is misaligned because of something as ridiculous as the way your head came out of your mother's birth canal, or the use of forceps when you were delivered. They don't care that you may be fifty years old. They may then embark on a two-year treatment process. You come in at intervals, they click something in your neck, and you part with a wad of cash. If you don't get better quickly, they say "well, what do you expect, you have this since the day you were born. It will take a while to fix". If you're gullible, you keep filling their coffers.

A Chartered Physio will expect you to start showing improvement very quickly, and get frustrated if you don't get a lot better in a very few sessions. They won't x-ray you, won't fleece you, and their professional body is there if you have any need to ask questions or make complaints.

They also carry comprehensive insurance with local insurance companies, and will liaise with your GP etc., something most Chiros won't do. In fact, must GPs won't liaise with Chiros, and rightly so.

People swear that Chiro helps, because most problems get better on their own anyway, and since chiropractic treatment goes on for so long you're bound to get better during the year or two of treatment. If you do get better, you credit the practitioner.

With Physio, the pressure is on them to get you better really quickly, and keep you better.

2Scoops

With the HSE the way it is, another key difference is that a physiotherapist will be very glad of the work! :pac:

Thoie

sensi-tive wrote: »

They may then embark on a two-year treatment process. You come in at intervals, they click something in your neck, and you part with a wad of cash. If you don't get better quickly, they say "well, what do you expect, you have this since the day you were born. It will take a while to fix". If you're gullible, you keep filling their coffers.

To be fair, of the three experiences I posted about (one my own, the other two of friends), the guy I went to did not do this. The other two flakes might just as easily have been selling Dr Coverall's Panacea. So on a sample size of 3, we can say that 2/3 of chiros are nutters, but that there is a remaining few out there who aren't bats.

I've found out since I last posted that the chiro I'd been seeing has left the country some time in the intervening years since I'd last been, but I think I might go look for another one. Questions I will be asking include:
What do you plan on doing with my chakras? (if they start elaborating, I don't want to know)
Do you think my aura might be misaligned? (if they tell me it's a common problem, I'm out of there)
How often would you expect to see most patients?

kaiser sauze

sensi-tive wrote: »

Your Chartered Physio is licensed to work in state-run hospitals, for starters. The Chiro is not.

The Chiro may well take x-rays, if you complain of, for example, back pain. They may even x-ray the entire body from top of skull to base of spine, in one long x-ray.

However, any qualified radiologist (the experts in reading x-rays) will tell you that ordinary x-rays are pretty useless in diagnosing back problems. Most back problems are soft-tissue related, and soft tissue isn't visible on x-ray.

Furthermore, x-rays of the spine are a major cause of avoidable exposure of the general population to ionizing radiation.

Just because a Chiro may own an x-ray machine doesn't mean they should use it on you!!! May make more money for them, but you should consider the future generations!

Chiros will tell you that your spine is misaligned because of something as ridiculous as the way your head came out of your mother's birth canal, or the use of forceps when you were delivered. They don't care that you may be fifty years old. They may then embark on a two-year treatment process. You come in at intervals, they click something in your neck, and you part with a wad of cash. If you don't get better quickly, they say "well, what do you expect, you have this since the day you were born. It will take a while to fix". If you're gullible, you keep filling their coffers.

A Chartered Physio will expect you to start showing improvement very quickly, and get frustrated if you don't get a lot better in a very few sessions. They won't x-ray you, won't fleece you, and their professional body is there if you have any need to ask questions or make complaints.

They also carry comprehensive insurance with local insurance companies, and will liaise with your GP etc., something most Chiros won't do. In fact, must GPs won't liaise with Chiros, and rightly so.

People swear that Chiro helps, because most problems get better on their own anyway, and since chiropractic treatment goes on for so long you're bound to get better during the year or two of treatment. If you do get better, you credit the practitioner.

With Physio, the pressure is on them to get you better really quickly, and keep you better.

I can wholeheartedly say that you are wrong on everything you say here, apart from the point about overuse of x-rays.

There are just so many inaccuracies here, I don't know where to begin, and I don't have the time, or inclination, to list them all and correct them.

AtomicHorror

406C wrote: »

Not sure about evidence base but this is one I can atest to albeit it is only anecdotal.

I know of a child whose parents brought him to a chiro for quite severe asthma. The child was on inhalers twice daily and as needed and during the winter would be hospitalised at least once, and this had been going on since the child was an infant. After a short period of chiro the child has little or no need for the inhalers although they still carry them.

A single-case study would be largely worthless as evidence even if it were not an anecdote. A cause to investigate further, but not evidence.

As to the evidence base for physiotherapy and osteopathy... physiotherapy has a poor evidence base but the community appears to be open to randomised controlled trials as well as meta analysis. What the progress is in that regard I don't know. Osteopathy I think fares a little better. I have heard of at least one meta analysis showing efficacy, but again I haven't looked into this in depth.

The key to this though, and I address this to kaiser sauze also, is that Osteopathy and Physiotherapy are open to independent investigation, to randomised controlled testing and to meta analysis. By contrast, at least two major national Chiropractic associations have attempted to sue, actually sue peer-reviewed scientific journals for having the gall to so much as suggest that Chiropractic must be open to these same investigations for efficacy and safety.

These people want to look after your health. But they also want to block attempts to find out how they'll do that and how safely. This is just one of the reasons why scientists and medics alike are very sceptical of Chiropractic, and why you should be too.

tallaght01

What EXACTLY do chiropracters look for in a lumbar x-ray?

Where is the evidence for non-acute spinal subluxation? Has it been properly described?

Not having a go, but I can never get an answer to these questions.

vibe666

another minus vote for chiropractors here. bunch of quacks.

a plus vote for both (good) physio's and also osteopaths, had good results in the past with both.

i've had back pain since i was a teen (accident related) and i've been to all 3 and tried several of each due to moving house etc. and found chiropractic to be little more than a money making scheme like all these (alleged) oriental medicine places that popped up recently. just trying to get you to keep coming back so they can continue to fleece you.

my other half is totally unqualified in any kind of treatment but has a natural affinity for massage (careful now) and can always tell when my back is bad with a quick massage and knows exactly what is what and she could see no real improvement with any of the chiropractors i have been to but both the osteopaths and physio's have helped me quite a lot.

in the end, even after paying 1300€ for a bed designed to ease back pain and much more cash shelled out in all directions trying to sort it out, most of my back problems have been solved by getting a better chair at work. ironically, not because it was better initially, but that the locking mechanism on the spring loaded back broke after about a week and although the back still pushes against me it is not solid so I have to make a point of arching my back so i don't fall off the thing backwards.

that on it's own has fixed 95% of all the problems i've had since i was a teen and I'm 32 now. i'd rarely go without having to see someone for 6 months in the past, but i've been almost completely pain free for over a year now (touch wood) so happy days.

kmick

sensi-tive wrote: »

Your Chartered Physio is licensed to work in state-run hospitals, for starters. The Chiro is not.

The Chiro may well take x-rays, if you complain of, for example, back pain. They may even x-ray the entire body from top of skull to base of spine, in one long x-ray.

However, any qualified radiologist (the experts in reading x-rays) will tell you that ordinary x-rays are pretty useless in diagnosing back problems. Most back problems are soft-tissue related, and soft tissue isn't visible on x-ray.

Furthermore, x-rays of the spine are a major cause of avoidable exposure of the general population to ionizing radiation.

Just because a Chiro may own an x-ray machine doesn't mean they should use it on you!!! May make more money for them, but you should consider the future generations!

Chiros will tell you that your spine is misaligned because of something as ridiculous as the way your head came out of your mother's birth canal, or the use of forceps when you were delivered. They don't care that you may be fifty years old. They may then embark on a two-year treatment process. You come in at intervals, they click something in your neck, and you part with a wad of cash. If you don't get better quickly, they say "well, what do you expect, you have this since the day you were born. It will take a while to fix". If you're gullible, you keep filling their coffers.

A Chartered Physio will expect you to start showing improvement very quickly, and get frustrated if you don't get a lot better in a very few sessions. They won't x-ray you, won't fleece you, and their professional body is there if you have any need to ask questions or make complaints.

They also carry comprehensive insurance with local insurance companies, and will liaise with your GP etc., something most Chiros won't do. In fact, must GPs won't liaise with Chiros, and rightly so.

People swear that Chiro helps, because most problems get better on their own anyway, and since chiropractic treatment goes on for so long you're bound to get better during the year or two of treatment. If you do get better, you credit the practitioner.

With Physio, the pressure is on them to get you better really quickly, and keep you better.

This is a hilarious rant from someone who is obviously a chartered physiotherapist. Especially the bit about ".. Chartered Physio will expect you to start showing improvement very quickly.." In my experience they will keep you coming back forever while making little progress. I think between chartered physiotherapists, osteopaths, chiropractors and physical therapists if you find a good one they are worth their weight in gold. My preference is physical therapy and osteo. The osteo for bone problems and the physical therapist for soft tissue work.

kaiser sauze

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The key to this though, and I address this to kaiser sauze also, is that Osteopathy and Physiotherapy are open to independent investigation, to randomised controlled testing and to meta analysis. By contrast, at least two major national Chiropractic associations have attempted to sue, actually sue peer-reviewed scientific journals for having the gall to so much as suggest that Chiropractic must be open to these same investigations for efficacy and safety.

These people want to look after your health. But they also want to block attempts to find out how they'll do that and how safely. This is just one of the reasons why scientists and medics alike are very sceptical of Chiropractic, and why you should be too.

I'm certainly not going to defend the associations in question for doing what you say, and I agree with you that they were wrong.

My point was specifically targeted to that poster who was simply ranting. It was galling for me to read that. For example, I've been to several chiropractors and not once, in 15 odd years, has one of them performed an x-ray on me.

These are real life examples of how a chiropractors care has helped friends of mine, after they went to their GP>>>>consultant route and got no joy.

Male friend, 17 at the time, still bedwetting. Three sessions with a chiro and he was sorted, he's now 25, has not been back since and is 'dry' all the time now.

Female friend, I think she was in mid-twenties, she's about 30 now. Massive menstrual cramps, nothing from GP worked and I think there was problems taking the pill as a result. I think she went for about 4-6 months and is now having normal cycles and only goes back about every 18-24 months like I do.

Male friend, 22 at the time, headaches and dizzy spells. Over a year of about two sessions a month was cleared. There were nerves/vertebrae pinched in his neck, I think. [He is now in early thirties and started going to specialists when he was 16] He was diagnosed with postural hypertension, iirc, and was told to never get up quickly from a sitting position! He goes once a year for check-up, but the chiro does not request he come back.

What I will say is that if you deal with a chiro and they keep encouraging you to come back regularly after about 4-6 months treatment, even I would be suspicious. If you are going to one for this length of time and you are not feeling any benefit, ask lots of questions and stop going if you don't think they can justify it.

I think my attitude to the Medical Board practitioners is that they seem to only treat symtoms, whereas a chiro will treat the causes.

[FTR, I am not a medical professional of any type, this is just my experience]

406C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

physiotherapy has a poor evidence base but the community appears to be open to randomised controlled trials as well as meta analysis.

so physiotherapy actually has a poor evidence base - is this right?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The key to this though, and I address this to kaiser sauze also, is that Osteopathy and Physiotherapy are open to independent investigation, to randomised controlled testing and to meta analysis.

So the UK Meade studies were neither?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

at least two major national Chiropractic associations have attempted to sue, actually sue peer-reviewed scientific journals for having the gall to so much as suggest that Chiropractic must be open to these same investigations for efficacy and safety.

Can you reference these please I'd fancy reading them over.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

These people want to look after your health. But they also want to block attempts to find out how they'll do that and how safely. This is just one of the reasons why scientists and medics alike are very sceptical of Chiropractic, and why you should be too.

I have never met a chiropractor that wasn't up for a discussion and explanation of what they did and why.

tallaght01 wrote: »

What EXACTLY do chiropracters look for in a lumbar x-ray?

As I have been told misalignment, measurements, variants affecting function and non age related degeneration....



[edit] PS I wonder is the OP wexpat girl even still reading this?

RobFowl

406C wrote: »

So the UK Meade studies were neither?

The meade studys from 1995
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7001/349?maxtoshow=&HITS=80&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=+Low+back+pain+of+mechanical+origin%3A+randomised+prospective+comparison+of+chiropractic+and+hospital+treatment&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
and the original from 1990
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7001/349?maxtoshow=&HITS=80&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=+Low+back+pain+of+mechanical+origin%3A+randomised+prospective+comparison+of+chiropractic+and+hospital+treatment&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Are quite interesting and seemed to be quite controversial at the time and even now. They measeures chiropractic treatment (left to the discretion of the chiropractor) with manipulation provided in NHS physiotheraphy out-patients. It showed a significantly reduction in pain (measued with the Oswestry pain measure http://www.orthopaedicscore.com/scorepages/oswestry_low_back_pain.html
Of about 7%.
It was critisid (mainly by physio's and orthopaedic surgeons) as not comparing like with like. IE the chiropractic care was provided by a private practitioner and the physio care was provided by various diffferent grades of physio (and a limited range of physio treatments).
It was a proper randomised study with good numbers involved.
At the same time there was research in the New England journal of medicine
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7001/349?maxtoshow=&HITS=80&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=+Low+back+pain+of+mechanical+origin%3A+randomised+prospective+comparison+of+chiropractic+and+hospital+treatment&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
which concluded that "[/I] Among patients with acute low back pain, the outcomes are similar whether they receive care from primary care practitioners, chiropractors, or orthopedic surgeons. Primary care practitioners provide the least expensive care for acute low back pain."
This study had about 10 times more patients than the meade study (but was an observational study.


to me this only shows the more you research something the less clear cut the answers you are looking for seem to get.

RobFowl

406C wrote: »

PS I wonder is the OP wexpat girl even still reading this?

I doubt it 406c

2Scoops

RobFowl wrote: »

The meade studys from 1995
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7001/349?maxtoshow=&HITS=80&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=+Low+back+pain+of+mechanical+origin%3A+randomised+prospective+comparison+of+chiropractic+and+hospital+treatment&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
and the original from 1990
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7001/349?maxtoshow=&HITS=80&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=+Low+back+pain+of+mechanical+origin%3A+randomised+prospective+comparison+of+chiropractic+and+hospital+treatment&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Are quite interesting and seemed to be quite controversial at the time and even now. They measeures chiropractic treatment (left to the discretion of the chiropractor) with manipulation provided in NHS physiotheraphy out-patients. It showed a significantly reduction in pain (measued with the Oswestry pain measure http://www.orthopaedicscore.com/scorepages/oswestry_low_back_pain.html
Of about 7%.
It was critisid (mainly by physio's and orthopaedic surgeons) as not comparing like with like. IE the chiropractic care was provided by a private practitioner and the physio care was provided by various diffferent grades of physio (and a limited range of physio treatments).
It was a proper randomised study with good numbers involved.
At the same time there was research in the New England journal of medicine
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7001/349?maxtoshow=&HITS=80&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=+Low+back+pain+of+mechanical+origin%3A+randomised+prospective+comparison+of+chiropractic+and+hospital+treatment&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
which concluded that "[/I] Among patients with acute low back pain, the outcomes are similar whether they receive care from primary care practitioners, chiropractors, or orthopedic surgeons. Primary care practitioners provide the least expensive care for acute low back pain."
This study had about 10 times more patients than the meade study (but was an observational study.

Intriguingly, these studies did not investigate the efficacy of chiropractic on bed-wetting, menstrual cramps, headaches, dizzy spells or asthma. :pac:

406C

RobFowl wrote: »

to me this only shows the more you research something the less clear cut the answers you are looking for seem to get.

and not only in this field!


The follow up Meade Study I took a quick read over (I hadn't read them over for sometime) and its the long term benefits that stand out. The second study was a follow up to the first 5 years previous.

That New England study I couldn't read - all the links went to the Meade study follow up but I do remember a study by an economist Manga in Canada and founded by the government that concluded chiropractic care for low back pain was cost effective, that those with low back pain should be referred first to chiropractors and that hospital privileges be extended to them...

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2485083&blobtype=pdf

2Scoops wrote: »

Intriguingly, these studies did not investigate the efficacy of chiropractic on bed-wetting, menstrual cramps, headaches, dizzy spells or asthma.

interestingly came on this for bed wetting - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7884329&dopt=AbstractPlus, and it appears the jury is out on asthma and chiropractic you re right 2scoops because I did look this one up when I was told about the child.

However I have very often heard about chiropractic and headaches, and for period problems related to low back problems they so often present together it would no surprise they would be cleared up together.

406C wrote: »

PS I wonder is the OP wexpat girl even still reading this?

RobFowl wrote: »

I doubt it 406c

so do I Rob - what is it they say 'doctors differ, patients die' I'd say wexpat would be probably just as confused if not more now if they had continued to read.


Some of the stuff posted is plain nuts including the inference that physiotherapy has no evidence base - if it had no evidence base people would be clamouring all over it to be removed from hospitals and day centres.

And for it to be stated that physiotherapy is the therapy of choice simply because it appears open to investigation - this too is rubbish. Its the therapy of choice simply because it is already part and parcel of the system and available for referral.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

These people want to look after your health. But they also want to block attempts to find out how they'll do that and how safely. This is just one of the reasons why scientists and medics alike are very sceptical of Chiropractic, and why you should be too.

This is not the case.

I have met a few chiropractors and have been impressed by them and have heard good and bad about them - I have heard good and bad about many other doctors too. I also know quite a few physios and to be fair some I would refer to and others I will not. I have only met one or two osteopaths when I was in the UK and I haven't ever read any ground breaking research in their regard. I understand they are trained here on weekend courses and so personally I would be happy only to refer to a UK trained osteopath.

I think there is good and bad in every profession but painting all chiropractors as money grabbing con men here is disingenuous when it is clear there is something to what they do.

2Scoops wrote: »

With the HSE the way it is, another key difference is that a physiotherapist will be very glad of the work!

This might just be the nub of the prevailing attitude here to chiropractors - which would be a shame for the public - our patients to whom we promise our best advice not prejudice.

doctors differ, patients die

tallaght01

So, what is subluxation? And who demonstrated it?

Does anyone have an image of a subluxed lumbar spine (non acute) and a normal one....perhaps linked to MRI studies of the same spines.

Presumably there must be lots of these images out there, seeing as chiropractic is so prolific.

And what are the measurements. I get a lot of sore backs in A+E (and the adult docs will get even more), so would be useful to ask our radiologists about measuring whatever it is.

Cheers guys.

kaiser sauze

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, what is subluxation? And who demonstrated it?

Does anyone have an image of a subluxed lumbar spine (non acute) and a normal one....perhaps linked to MRI studies of the same spines.

Presumably there must be lots of these images out there, seeing as chiropractic is so prolific.

And what are the measurements. I get a lot of sore backs in A+E (and the adult docs will get even more), so would be useful to ask our radiologists about measuring whatever it is.

Cheers guys.

Ever heard of Google?

2Scoops

406C wrote: »

interestingly came on this for bed wetting - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7884329&dopt=AbstractPlus

A pretty damning indictment of chiropractic for the treatment of bed-wetting and the research skills of Reed WR et al, if you ask me. :pac: Not only did they have unmatched groups, which completely undermines the study, but they saw only a trivial difference in bed-wetting frequency in the treatment group [9/14 days pre; 8/14 days post). Hardly worth the cost for such a meaningless effect. Mammy is still going to be doing a lot of laundry.

And there's a world of difference between seeing a 1 day/2 weeks reduction in bed wetting in children, versus a complete curing of the condition in a 17 year old, as alluded to by kaiser sauze.

I think I have been more generous than most on this forum to chiropractic. It has efficacy in a number of situations. I think it hurts and demeans the profession when people try to make it out that it does more than it has been shown to.

Eeden

Once went for a job interview with a chiropractor; once she heard my dad was a doctor, the interview pretty much ended right there. I had no idea before that there was any problem...

tallaght01

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Ever heard of Google?

I was looking for some randomised trials, or some descriptive anatomical papers.

Ever heard of them?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Chiropractor's are better trained then pysio's. Takes something like 10 years to become a qualified chiropracter. Chiropractors speacilise in the manipulation of the back and neck. For injuries to your leg best see a physio.

2Scoops

Gabriel Rapping Recruiter wrote: »

Chiropractor's are better trained then pysio's. Takes something like 10 years to become a qualified chiropracter.

Try 4 years; exactly the same as (or more than!) physiotherapy. However, in countries like Ireland, where the profession is not regulated, exactly 0 years of training are required to call yourself a chiropractor.

406C

2Scoops wrote: »

in countries like Ireland, where the profession is not regulated, exactly 0 years of training are required to call yourself a chiropractor.

in fairness this was the case for physiotherapy right up to last year as well as many other professions within the HSE was it not?

Eeden wrote: »

Once went for a job interview with a chiropractor; once she heard my dad was a doctor, the interview pretty much ended right there. I had no idea before that there was any problem...

:eek:

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, what is subluxation? And who demonstrated it?

Does anyone have an image of a subluxed lumbar spine (non acute) and a normal one....perhaps linked to MRI studies of the same spines.

Presumably there must be lots of these images out there, seeing as chiropractic is so prolific.

And what are the measurements. I get a lot of sore backs in A+E (and the adult docs will get even more), so would be useful to ask our radiologists about measuring whatever it is.

Cheers guys.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Ever heard of Google?

bit of a sharp reply but on the button nevertheless for the papers, xrays etc Tallaght01 or even perhaps ask a chiropractor.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Ever heard of Google?

had some time unusually and thro boredom I did a bit of digging and as I understand it the 'subluxation' is a theory explaining the interaction, (overstimulation or lack of) between the spine and nervous system running all the functions involved with the inherent environmental adaptability, homeostasis and health creation of the body.

This webpage intrigued me:

http://mcc.chiroclinic.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=116

Not going to comment further other than to say it has piqued my interest and that I will be following this up in my ongoing personal study.


I am unlikely to get back here for the next week or more other than to quickly browse so I'd like to wish you all a Happy Christmas.

Best Wishes