ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Scientific literature applicable to chiropractic practice proliferates in quantity, quality, and source. Chiropractic is a worldwide profession and varies in scope between states or provinces and from country to country. It is logical to consider that the focus and emphasis of chiropractic education varies between programs as well. This original research study endeavored to determine "essential literature" recommended by chiropractic faculty. The purpose of this article is (1) to share our results and (2) to promote discussion and explore means for future collaboration of chiropractic faculty through a worldwide platform. METHODS: A 2-phase recruitment occurred initially at the institutional level and subsequently at the faculty level. A Web-based survey used qualitative data collection methods to gather bibliographic citations. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics, and citation responses were ranked per number of recommendations, grouped into categories, and tabulated per journal source and publication date. RESULTS: Forty-one chiropractic programs were contacted, resulting in 30 participating chiropractic programs (16 US and 14 international). Forty-five faculty members completed the entire survey, submitting 126 peer-reviewed publications and 25 additional citations. Readings emphasized clinical management of spine pain, the science of spinal manipulation, effectiveness of manual therapies, teaching of chiropractic techniques, outcomes assessments, and professional issues. CONCLUSION: A systematic approach to surveying educators in international chiropractic institutions was accomplished. The results of the survey provide a list of essential literature for the chiropractic profession. We recommend establishing a chiropractic faculty registry for improved communication and collaboration.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Neck pain is a common musculoskeletal complaint responsive to manual therapies. Doctors of chiropractic commonly use manual cervical distraction, a mobilization procedure, to treat neck pain patients. However, it is unknown if clinicians can consistently apply standardized cervical traction forces, a critical step toward identifying an optimal therapeutic dose. PURPOSE: To assess clinicians' proficiency in delivering manually applied traction forces within specified ranges to neck pain patients. STUDY DESIGN: An observational study nested within a randomized clinical trial. SAMPLE: Two research clinicians provided study interventions to 48 participants with neck pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinician proficiency in delivering cervical traction forces within three specified ranges (low force, less than 20 N; medium force, 21-50 N; and high force 51-100 N). METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated to three force-based treatment groups. Participants received five manual cervical distraction treatments over 2 weeks while lying prone on a treatment table instrumented with force sensors. Two clinicians delivered manual traction forces according to treatment groups. Clinicians treated participants first without real-time visual feedback displaying traction force and then with visual feedback. Peak traction force data were extracted and descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: Clinicians delivered manual cervical distraction treatments within the prescribed traction force ranges 75% of the time without visual feedback and 97% of the time with visual feedback. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that doctors of chiropractic can successfully deliver prescribed traction forces while treating neck pain patients, enabling the capability to conduct force-based dose response clinical studies.
