Wikipedia

Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation

< Talk:Chiropractic
Latest comment: 15 years ago by BullRangifer in topic Chiropractic improvements
Learn more about this page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a mediation talk page for Chiropractic.

Ground rules

edit
  • Assume good faith until your eyes bleed.
  • Focus on content; avoid "you" statements in favor of "I".
  • To avoid mediation creep, please do not open new topics while a discussion is on-going.

Moderator - try Limited Edit War?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Moderator, can we try my 'limited edit war' idea? Moderation is clearly failing when there is still no consensus after 6000 words+ discussing two sentences. This subpage (click here) is how I see it working --Surturz (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Encouraging edit wars, even limited ones, doesn't sound promising. If edit wars don't work in articles, why would they work here? Eubulides (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Fine, don't call it an "edit war". Call it "wiki-editing". I think it's a good idea; why not try it? The proposal above includes the idea that you can't revert to a previous version but must always change it to something new. That prevents any edit warring from happening. Every edit will be productive: it will create a new proposed version of that part of the article. Also, the proposal specifies that it must be done in a spirit of cooperation and of trying to arrive at a version everyone will accept. We might want to use some of the rules Elonka had established here; I was going to say but not the 0RR part, but actually maybe we do want to use that part too: no reverting to an identical previous version, but you can change things. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh no, I don't think applying the rules from Quackwatch is a good idea at all. In my opinion that got a lot of editors to cease editing at the article and a lot of problems occurred. Maybe use the talk page and keep adding until the section is at an acceptable version, but wait, this is what they have been doing all along and look where it's at. Maybe each sentence under dispute can be put in this mediation separately and then the sentence, or whatever, can be worked on under the protection of the mediator's descretions to prevent circular arguments. I think Shell has been doing a great job trying to prevent the same arguments to go on here and that the editors need to be specific in there changes, as the mediator has requested often. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • I really like the idea presented in Surturz's subpage; since we're already trying to throw back and forth new suggestions to find one that works for everyone, this would let everyone see those changes and make tweaks of their own without filling up copious space on talk pages. Crohnie, the difference here would be editing on a subpage trying to find a compromise within restrictions, not any restrictions on the article itself. Shell babelfish 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Shell, I missed this comment that you made explaining things, sorry, thanks for being so patient and taking the time to explain. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
The Content Creativity Barnstar
For everyone here - you've done an incredible job working hard at working together. The section is coming together without any edit wars; there've been no personal remarks and in general, everyone has been incredibly civil and helpful. This is a very impressive way to turn things around - feel free to yank this barnstar and put it in your own user space :) Shell babelfish 19:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Keep going?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It looks like the first section finally reached a point where everyone could tolerate it for the time being. I know there are still some outstanding concerns about OR in the section in general and hopefully we'll be having a few more admins review those discussions and see what conclusions they come to. In the meantime, how would everyone feel about working on other sections? Did the limited edit war work well? Are there things we can do to improve the technique? Shell babelfish 22:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Prolly needs a new name other than LEW. I liked being able to see the "current proposed version", rather than having to keep all the discussion in my head at once. QuackGuru and Levine2112 had issues with the process, so it would be good to get their feedback on any improvements to the process. The key thing is that all editors aimed for text that was considered an improvement by everybody. It's a lower bar, but for contentious articles, much more practical. --Surturz (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
It makes sense to draft a new version here first. The logical next thing to work on would be the next bullet, namely, the "Whiplash and other neck pain" bullet of Chiropractic # Effectiveness. But if all this might be overturned by admin review, perhaps we should hold off on further work until admins have a chance to review what's been done so far. Eubulides (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't believe there's reason to be concerned that work here will be overturned. The issue in question was my determination of consensus on the general issue of SM studies being OR. Either other admin's will agree with my determination, in which case nothing will happen or they will decide there was no consensus, in which case further discussion needs to happen or they may decide that consensus runs the other direction which would mean revisiting the text to determine what should be removed or how the text should be handled. I believe the last scenario would be the only one which would affect any text worked out here, but its also the least likely to happen. Shell babelfish 05:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Two changes to the lead

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago30 comments9 people in discussion
Battle between chiropractic and the AMA
Here, the edit war was over replacing this:
"For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by ideas such as subluxation that are considered significant barriers to scientific progress within chiropractic.[1] Vaccination remains controversial among chiropractors.[2]"
with this:
"For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by ideas such as subluxation[1] that are not based on solid science.[3] Vaccination remains controversial among chiropractors.[2] The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult"[4] and boycotted it until losing a 1987 antitrust case.[5]"
Effectiveness of chiropractic care
Here, the edit war was over replacing this:
"Opinions differ as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment[clarification needed][6] and the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown.[7]"
with this:
"Many studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results. Collectively, systematic reviews of this research have not demonstrated that spinal manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of back pain.[3] The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown.[7]"
  • These two parts can be discussed relatively independently, and we can discuss either one first.

Eubulides (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Battle between chiropractic and the AMA

edit
I think it could be better. Something like, In 1965, the American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult"[9] and boycotted its members from referring patients to chiropractors until losing a 1987 antitrust case.[10]--Hughgr (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
As can be seen from Cherkin 1989 (PMID 2817179), that's not quite right: the AMA allowed physicians to refer patients to chiropractors starting in 1978 (not 1987). The "In 1965" is unnecessary and could easily be misinterpreted as implying that the AMA started battling chiropractic in 1965, which isn't right. Also, the phrase "boycotted its members" doesn't make grammatical sense, as the AMA did not boycott its own members. Eubulides (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thats not quite right either, the source says in 1978 the AMA's Judicial Council adopted new opinions under which physicians could refer patients to chiropractors, and in 1980 the AMA revised its Principles of Medical Ethics by eliminating previous proscriptions against any associations between physicians and "unscientific practitioners. I would say 1980 because thats when it appears on paper? Maybe we should use a better source besides a "Letters to the Editor"?
I think "In 1965" is important because it adds context, but perhaps it would help if we moved the comma so it becomes "In 1965 the American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult", and ..."--Hughgr (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Context is provided by the "For most of its existence" in the previous sentence. And "For most of its existence" is better context, as the battle between chiropractic and organized medicine began long before 1965; mentioning "1965" in the lead, without providing information that is so detailed that it is not even present in the body of the article, would mislead the reader into thinking that the battle really began in 1965. Also, the cited source does not support the "1965"; nor is "1965" in the body. Please see Talk:Chiropractic #Incorrect citation for "unscientific cult" for a proposal to fix the 1980 versus 1978 business. Eubulides (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose the phrase "that are not based on solid science", per NPOV. I'm not convinced that this is "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute"; the source establishes that it's the stated opinion of one author, Ernst. Alternative phrases which I would consider improvements include:
    • that are not based on generally accepted science
    • that are not recognized as based on solid science
    • that have been criticized as "not based on solid science"
    • of which a scientific basis has not been firmly established
    • that have been criticized as unscientific
    etc. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with the new proposal. No serious disagreement exists among reliable sources presented in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
There is no dispute among reliable sources that the chiropractic dogma of subluxation is not based on solid science. Indeed, as we have seen, reliable sources go much farther and use words like "antiscientific" and "pseudoscientific" to describe the original chiropractic theory of subluxation. Saying "not based on solid science" is about as mild as we can get, and still be supported by reliable sources. The rewordings proposed above are all euphemisms that introduce far more POV than they remove: they would give the naive reader the false impression that there is genuine doubt among reliable sources over whether the chiropractic theory of subluxation is scientific. There is no such doubt. Eubulides (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Support improved, new version. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - per Coppertwig and also I would like the AMA bit expanded to discuss the AMA's current take on chiropractic - "It is ethical for a physician to associate professionally with chiropractors provided that the physician believes that such association is in the best interests of his or her patient. A physician may refer a patient for diagnostic or therapeutic services to a chiropractor permitted by law to furnish such services whenever the physician believes that this may benefit his or her patient. Physicians may also ethically teach in recognized schools of chiropractic. (V, VI)" source Perhaps we need something to this effect in the body of the article as well. It certainly completes the story. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I have followed up after Coppertwig's comment above, and hope that Coppertwig can reply there. As for expanding the material to talk more about the AMA's revision to its policies, I gather that this is alluding to possible additions to both the body and the lead, but no specific wording is being being proposed. The current text already says that the court decision "ended the AMA's de facto boycott of chiropractic". It's not clear that details from the AMA's revised policies are needed in the body, much less the lead: after all, this level of detail is not present even in the main article Chiropractic history. Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Are you open to balancing the article? If we present the AMA's opinions from nearly 4 decades ago, should we not present their most current, published opinion on the same subject?--Hughgr (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Of course the article should be WP:NPOV. No wording proposal has been made yet, so it's hard to give a specific opinion. However, any wording proposal should rely on the weight given to the topic by reliable secondary sources such as Cooper & McKee 2003 (PMID 12669653), Keating et al. 2005, and Villanueva-Russell 2005 (PMID 15550303). Eubulides (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Effectiveness of chiropractic care

edit
  • Oppose. I'm not comfortable with the phrase "not demonstrated that spinal manipulation is effective". A reviewer can look at any collection of evidence and state that there is not enough evidence to be convincing. I think a better reflection of the source would be to base our statement on this quote from Ernst: "... and its therapeutic value has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt." I suggest including the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt". Different people will have different thresholds for how much evidence is required to convince them. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with the new proposal. The phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" sounds like something that someone would say in a court case. QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
According to the source: "The core concepts of chiropractic, subluxation and spinal manipulation, are not based on sound science." The phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" is not specific about subluxation and might fail verification. QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
The proposal to add the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" is not specific. What would the proposed text look like after the phase was added, and how would this text be supported by a reliable source? I don't offhand see how it could be done, without a rewrite that's more substantial than merely adding that phrase. Eubulides (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Opposemainly for this sentence. . . Collectively, systematic reviews of this research have not demonstrated that spinal manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of back pain. . . this is not an accurate portayal of the sources. . . further, it confuses the effectiveness of spinal manipulation with chiropractic. . . they are not one in the same.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)I have moved the preceding comment has been moved here - the appropriate section for this discussion. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is an accurate portrayal of the source presented. No evidence to the contrary has been presented. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
This "oppose" seems to be out of place, as the "Collectively" sentence belongs to #Effectiveness of chiropractic care, not to this subsection. Anyway, The "Collectively" sentence accurately portrays Ernst 2008 (PMID 18280103), "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation", which says this (p. 8): "Table 3 gives an overview of the most up-to-date systematic reviews by indication. These systematic reviews usually include trials of spinal manipulation regardless of who administered it. Thus, they are not exclusively an evaluation of chiropractic. Collectively, their results fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is effective. The only possible exception is back pain. For this condition, manipulation may be as effective (or ineffective) as standard therapy." Eubulides(talk) 19:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Effectiveness mediation

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments1 person in discussion

Whiplash and other neck pain

edit
  • Whiplash and other neck pain. There is no overall consensus on manual therapies for neck pain.[8] A 2008 review found evidence that educational videos, mobilization, and exercises appear more beneficial for whiplash than alternatives; that SM, mobilization, supervised exercise, low-level laser therapy and perhaps acupuncture are more effective for non-whiplash neck pain than alternatives but none of these treatments is clearly superior; and that there is no evidence that any intervention improves prognosis.[9] A 2007 review found that SM and mobilization are effective for neck pain.[8] Of three systematic reviews of SM published between 2000 and May 2005, one reached a positive conclusion, and a 2004 Cochrane review[10] found that SM and mobilization are beneficial only when combined with exercise.[11] A 2005 review found consistent evidence supporting mobilization for acute whiplash, and limited evidence supporting SM for whiplash.[12]

Comments on whiplash and other neck pain

edit

Me thinks we might be able to shorten this section a bit. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I made this change to trim this long section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and made the change in mainspace. I suggest we remove the last sentence from this section. See WP:UNDUE weight. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think we can shorten the section the same way we shortened the other sections. See WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Other

edit

Comments on other

edit

A 2008 literature synthesis found fair evidence supporting assurance and advice to stay active for sciatica and radicular pain in the leg.[27]

The reference done by chiropractors is favorable to sciatica and radicular pain in the leg treatments. This may be WP:UNDUE weight to have a reference written by chiropractors to have such prominence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I made this change to reflect my proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made this change to fix the undue weight. QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made this change in accordance with Wikipedia policy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

This edit did not match the edit summary. The previous discussion is here at this mediation page and there is no specific objection based on Wikipedia policy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No further comments have been made so I made this change. I shortened the long run on sentence and removed the lower quality reference. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Chiropractic improvements

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I explained what ideas mean, removed the extra spacing added to the table, restored the deletion of a sentence to the philosophy section, and shortened a long run on sentence.[1] QuackGuru (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The chiropractic article's talk page is thataway, not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

References

edit

Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.

(The following resolve otherwise-dangling references: [9] [11] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [19] [27] )

References
  1. ^ a b c Keating JC Jr, Cleveland CS III, Menke M (2005). "Chiropractic history: a primer" (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic. Retrieved 2008-06-16. A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine. Chiropractors' tendency to assert the meaningfulness of various theories and methods as a counterpoint to allopathic charges of quackery has created a defensiveness which can make critical examination of chiropractic concepts difficult (Keating and Mootz 1989). One example of this conundrum is the continuing controversy about the presumptive target of DCs' adjustive interventions: subluxation (Gatterman 1995; Leach 1994).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b c Busse JW, Morgan L, Campbell JB (2005). "Chiropractic antivaccination arguments". J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 28 (5): 367–73. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.04.011. PMID 15965414.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ a b c Ernst E (2008). "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation". J Pain Symptom Manage. 35 (5): 544–62. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004. PMID 18280103.
  4. ^ a b Cherkin D (1989). "AMA policy on chiropractic". Am J Public Health. 79 (11): 1569–70. PMC 1349822. PMID 2817179.
  5. ^ a b Cooper RA, McKee HJ (2003). "Chiropractic in the United States: trends and issues". Milbank Q. 81 (1): 107–38. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00040. PMID 12669653.
  6. ^ a b DeVocht JW (2006). "History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint". Clin Orthop Relat Res. 444: 243–9. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000203460.89887.8d. PMID 16523145.
  7. ^ a b c Leboeuf-Yde C, Hestbæk L (2008). "Maintenance care in chiropractic - what do we know?". Chiropr Osteopat. 16: 3. doi:10.1186/1746-1340-16-3. PMID 18466623.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  8. ^ a b Vernon H, Humphreys BK (2007). "Manual therapy for neck pain: an overview of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews" (PDF). Eura Medicophys. 43 (1): 91–118. PMID 17369783.
  9. ^ a b Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G; et al. (2008). "Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders". Spine. 33 (4 Suppl): S123–52. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181644b1d. PMID 18204386. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |doi_brokendate= ignored (|doi-broken-date= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ Gross AR, Hoving JL, Haines TA; et al. (2004). "Manipulation and mobilisation for mechanical neck disorders". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD004249. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004249.pub2. PMID 14974063. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ a b Ernst E, Canter PH (2006). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation". J R Soc Med. 99 (4): 192–6. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.192. PMID 16574972.
  12. ^ Conlin A, Bhogal S, Sequeira K, Teasell R (2005). "Treatment of whiplash-associated disorders—part I: non-invasive interventions". Pain Res Manag. 10 (1): 21–32. PMID 15782244.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ McHardy A, Hoskins W, Pollard H, Onley R, Windsham R (2008). "Chiropractic treatment of upper extremity conditions: a systematic review". J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 31 (2): 146–59. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.12.004. PMID 18328941.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. ^ Hoskins W, McHardy A, Pollard H, Windsham R, Onley R (2006). "Chiropractic treatment of lower extremity conditions: a literature review". J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 29 (8): 658–71. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.08.004. PMID 17045100.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ Everett CR, Patel RK (2007). "A systematic literature review of nonsurgical treatment in adult scoliosis". Spine. 32 (19 Suppl): S130–4. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318134ea88. PMID 17728680.
  16. ^ Romano M, Negrini S (2008). "Manual therapy as a conservative treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review". Scoliosis. 3: 2. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-3-2. PMID 18211702.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  17. ^ Hawk C, Khorsan R, Lisi AJ, Ferrance RJ, Evans MW (2007). "Chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review with implications for whole systems research". J Altern Complement Med. 13 (5): 491–512. doi:10.1089/acm.2007.7088. PMID 17604553.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ^ Hondras MA, Linde K, Jones AP (2005). "Manual therapy for asthma". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD001002. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001002.pub2. PMID 15846609.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. ^ a b c Gotlib A, Rupert R (2008). "Chiropractic manipulation in pediatric health conditions - an updated systematic review". Chiropr Osteopat. 16: 11. doi:10.1186/1746-1340-16-11. PMID 18789139.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  20. ^ Husereau D, Clifford T, Aker P, Leduc D, Mensinkai S (2003). Spinal Manipulation for Infantile Colic (PDF). Technology report no. 42. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. ISBN 1-894978-11-0. Retrieved 2008-10-06.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. ^ Glazener CM, Evans JH, Cheuk DK (2005). "Complementary and miscellaneous interventions for nocturnal enuresis in children". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD005230. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005230. PMID 15846744.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. ^ O'Connor D, Marshall S, Massy-Westropp N (2003). "Non-surgical treatment (other than steroid injection) for carpal tunnel syndrome". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD003219. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003219. PMID 12535461.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  23. ^ Sarac AJ, Gur A (2006). "Complementary and alternative medical therapies in fibromyalgia". Curr Pharm Des. 12 (1): 47–57. doi:10.2174/138161206775193262. PMID 16454724.
  24. ^ Brand PL, Engelbert RH, Helders PJ, Offringa M (2005). "[Systematic review of the effects of therapy in infants with the KISS-syndrome (kinetic imbalance due to suboccipital strain)]". Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd (in Dutch). 149 (13): 703–7. PMID 15819137.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  25. ^ Proctor ML, Hing W, Johnson TC, Murphy PA (2006). "Spinal manipulation for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD002119. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002119.pub3. PMID 16855988.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  26. ^ Pennick VE, Young G (2007). "Interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD001139. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001139.pub2. PMID 17443503.
  27. ^ a b Lawrence DJ, Meeker W, Branson R; et al. (2008). "Chiropractic management of low back pain and low back-related leg complaints: a literature synthesis". J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 31 (9): 659–74. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.10.007. PMID 19028250. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) An earlier, freely readable version is in: Meeker W, Branson R, Bronfort G; et al. (2007). "Chiropractic management of low back pain and low back related leg complaints" (PDF). Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters. Retrieved 2008-11-28. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation&oldid=1151045741"