Implications for Research
Many symptoms resembling an adverse event were
present in nearly all the subjects at baseline and diminished
in frequency in the population during the first 3 months.
This demonstrates the need to record baseline status for
concomitant symptoms to avoid errone ously ascribing their
incidence to treatment.
CONCLUSION
Despite the fact that adverse events following treatment
are common, and in some cases severe in intensity, this
study shows that the benefits of chiropractic care for neck
pain seem to outweigh the potential risks.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study was partially funded by The European
Chiropractors’ Union (grant number A.03-1) and by the
Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (Fel-
lowship number 06-03-04).
REFERENCES
1. Borghouts JA, Koes BW, Vondeling H, Bouter LM. Cost-of-
illness of neck pain in the Nethe rlands in 1996. Pain
1999;80:629-36.
2. Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The Saskatchewan Health and
Back Pain Survey. The prevalence of neck pain and related
disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine 1998;23:1689-98.
3. Gross AR, Hoving JL, Haines TA, et al. A Cochrane review of
manipulation and mobilization for mechanical neck disorders.
Spine 2004;29:1541-8.
4. Hoving JL, Koes BW, de Vet HC, et al. Manual therapy,
physical therapy, or continued care by a general practitioner for
patients with neck pain. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann
Intern Med 2002;136:713-22.
5. Gabriel SE, Jaakkimainen L, Bombardier C. Risk for serious
gastrointestinal complications related to use of nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs. A meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med
1991;115:787-96.
6. Ofman JJ, MacLean CH, Straus WL, et al. A metaanalysis of
severe upper gastrointestinal complications of nonsteroidal
antiinflammatory drugs. J Rheumatol 2002;29:804-12.
7. Hallas J, Lauritsen J, Villadsen HD, Gram LF. Nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs and upper gastrointestinal bleeding,
identifying high-risk groups by excess risk estimates. Scand J
Gastroenterol 1995;30:438-44.
8. Assendelft WJ, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Complications of
spinal manipulation: a comprehensive review of the literature.
J Fam Pract 1996;42:475-80.
9. Dziewas R, Konrad C, Drager B, Evers S, Besselmann M,
Ludemann P, et al. Cervical artery dissection—clinical features,
risk factors, therapy and outcome in 126 patients. J Neurol
2003;250:1179-84.
10. Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M. Risk factors and
precipitating neck movements causing vertebrobasilar artery
dissection after cervical trauma and spinal manipulation. Spine
1999;24:785-94.
11. Barrett AJ, Breen AC. Adverse effects of spinal manipulation.
J R Soc Med 2000;93:258-9.
12. Cagnie B, Vinck E, Beernaert A, Cambier D. How common are
side effects of spinal manipulation and can these side effects be
predicted? Man Ther 2004;9:151-6.
13. Leboeuf-Yde C, Hennius B, Rudberg E, Leufvenmark P,
Thunman M. Side effects of chiropractic treatment: a pro-
spective study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1997;20:511-5.
14. Senstad O, Leboeuf-Yde C, Borchgrevink C. Frequency and
characteristics of side effects of spinal manipulative therapy.
Spine 1997;22:435-40.
15. Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Vassilaki M, Chiang LM.
Adverse reactions to chiropractic treatment and their effects
on satisfaction and clinical outcomes among patients enrolled
in the UCLA Neck Pain Study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther
2004;27:16-25.
16. Axen I, Rosenbaum A, Robech R, Wren T, Leboeuf-Yde C.
Can patient reactions to the first chiropractic treatment predict
early favorable treatment outcome in persistent low back pain?
J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2002;25:450-4.
17. Axen I, Rosenbaum A, Robech R, Larsen K, Leboeuf-Yde C.
The Nordic back pain subpopulation program: can patient
reactions t o the first chiropractic treatment predict early
favorable treatment outcome in nonpersistent low back pain?
J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2005;28:153-8.
18. Bolton JE, Wilkinson RC. Responsiveness of pain scales: a
comparison of three pain intensity measures in chiropractic
patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1998;21:1-7.
19. Potter RG, Jones JM, Boardman AP. A prospective study of
primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain: the identi-
fication of predictive factors for chronicity. Br J Gen Pract
2000;50:225-7.
20. Heijmans WFGJ, Lutke Schipholt HJA, Elvers JWH, Oos-
tendorp RA. Neck Disability Index Dutch version (NDI-DV)
bij chronische bwhiplashQ patienten: onderzoe k naar de
betrouwbaarheid. Ned Tijdschr voor Fysiotherapie 2006;112:
94-9.
21. Macfarlane GJ, Thomas E, Croft PR, Papageorgiou AC,
Jayson MI, Silman AJ. Predictors of early improvement in
low back pain amongst consulters to general practice: the
Practical Applications
! Most patients in this study had chronic, recurrent
complaints; mild to moderate disability of the
neck; and a mild amount of pain at baseline.
! Approximately half of the cohort was recovered at
the fourth visit from their presenting complaint,
whereas approximately two thirds were recovered
at 3 and 12 months.
! Fifty-six percent of the study population indicated
an adverse event following any of the first 3
treatments, which was typically musculoskeletal or
pain related and was mild to moderate in intensity.
Only 5 subjects (1%) reported to be much worse at
12 months.
! Although adverse events are common, many
patients benefit from treatment.
! For the participants in this study, the benefits of
chiropractic care for neck pain seem to outweigh
the potential risks.
Rubinstein et alJournal of Manipulativ e and Physiological Therapeutics
Adverse Events With Chiropractic CareVolume 30, Number 6
417