top of page

Effectiveness of Chiropractic Care

There is much research proving the efficacy of chiropractic care. A list of research sources approved by the Canadian Chiropractic Association, along with their abstracts, is provided here for your benefit. Drs. Cabrita and Chin encourage you to explore these sources and discover the ways in which chiropractic care can improve and enhance your well-being.


"Randomised Comparison of Chiropractic and Hospital Outpatient Management for Low Back Pain: Results from Extended Follow Up"


A follow-up study was published in the British Medical Journal in 1995, which presents the full results and concludes that "at three years the results confirm the findings of an earlier report that when chiropractic or hospital therapists treat patients with low back pain as they would in day to day practice those treated by chiropractic derive more benefit and long term satisfaction than those treated by hospitals."

"The Appropriateness of Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain. Project Overview and Literature Review"

RAND, a prestigious research organization in the U.S., released a report on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation for low-back pain. On the efficacy of spinal manipulation for low-back pain, although the investigators found that the literature on this subject is of uneven quality, they concluded that "support is consistent for the use of spinal manipulation as a treatment for patients with acute low-back pain and an absence of other signs or symptoms of lower limb nerve-root involvement".

"Patient Evaluations of Low Back Pain Care from Family Physicians and Chiropractors"

This study found that low back pain patients whose primary provider was a chiropractor were significantly more satisfied with their care than patients whose primary care provider was a medical doctor, orthopedic surgeon, or HMO provider. Patients of chiropractors (in comparison to the others listed above) more frequently responded that the information they received was excellent (47.1% vs. 30.3%), that a careful examination of their back was undertaken (96.1% vs. 79.9%), that the cause of their problem was clearly explained (93.6% vs. 74.6%), and that their satisfaction with the treatment of their back problem was excellent (52.1% vs. 31.5%).

"Acute Low Back Problems in Adults. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 14"

In December 1994, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR, a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services) released a clinical practice guideline entitled Acute Low Back Problems in Adults. The guideline was developed by a 23-member expert multidisciplinary panel, using rigorous scientific methodology. The guideline concluded that relief of discomfort of low back pain can be accomplished most safely by only two methods: non-prescription medication and/or spinal manipulation. Most other therapies currently in use for the treatment of low back pain were found to be either ineffective or unsubstantiated by scientific research. Side-effects associated with the use of medication were found to be greater than those associated with manipulation, which were very limited.

Royal College of General Practitioners (1996) Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain, Great Britain.

The Royal College of General Practitioners, in consultation with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, Osteopathic Association of Great Britain, British Chiropractic Association, and the National Back Pain Association constructed clinical guidelines on low back pain management, based on extensive international scientific evidence. One of the principal recommendations of the guidelines is "to consider manipulative treatment within the first 6 weeks for patients who need additional help with pain relief or who are failing to return to normal activities" based on high level evidence that within the first six weeks of onset of acute or recurrent low back pain, manipulation provides better short-term improvement in pain and activity levels and higher patient satisfaction than the treatments to which it has been compared.

bottom of page