Letter to the Editor Re: Oakley PA, Cuttler JM, Harrison DE. X-Ray Imaging Is Essential for Contemporary Chiropractic and Manual Therapy Spinal Rehabilitation: Radiography Increases Benefits and Reduces Risks. Dose Response. 2018 Jun 19;16(2)

Examining Clinical Opinion and Experience Regarding Utilization of Plain Radiography of the Spine: Evidence from Surveying the Chiropractic Profession

Plain Radiography of the spine (PROTS) is utilized in many forms of healthcare including the chiropractic profession; however, the literature reflects conflicting opinions regarding utilization and value. Despite being an essential part of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP), few studies assess Doctors of Chiropractic (DCs) clinical opinions and experience regarding the utilization of (PROTS) in practice. In this study, DCs were surveyed regarding utilization of PROTS in practice. The survey was administered to an estimated 50,000 licensed DCs by email. A total of 4301 surveys were completed, of which 3641 were United States (US) DCs. The Clinician Opinion and Experience on Chiropractic Radiography (COECR) scale was designed to analyze survey responses. This valid and reliable scale demonstrated good internal consistency using confirmatory factor analysis and the Rasch model. Survey responses show that 73.3% of respondents utilize PROTS in practice and 26.7% refer patients out for PROTS. Survey responses show that, among US DCs, 91.9% indicate PROTS has value beyond identification of pathology, 86.7% indicate that PROTS is important regarding biomechanical analysis of the spine, 82.9% indicate that PROTS is vital to practice, 67.4% indicate that PROTS aids in measuring outcomes, 98.6% indicate the opinion that PROTS presents very low to no risk to patients, and 93.0% indicate that sharing clinical findings from PROTS studies with patients is beneficial to clinical outcomes. The results of the study indicated that based on clinical experience, the majority of DCs find PROTS to be vital to practice and valuable beyond the identification of red flags.

What are the effects of diagnostic imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care: a matched observational study

Background

Evidence suggests that diagnostic imaging for low back pain does not improve care in the absence of suspicion of serious pathology. However, the effect of imaging use on clinical outcomes has not been investigated in patients presenting to chiropractors. The aim of this study was to determine if diagnostic imaging affects clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care.

Methods

A matched observational study using prospective longitudinal observational data with one year follow up was performed in primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Data was collected from November 2016 to December 2019. Participants included low back pain patients presenting for chiropractic care, who were either referred or not referred for diagnostic imaging during their initial visit. Patients were excluded if they were less than 18 years old, had a diagnosis of underlying pathology, or had previous imaging relevant to their current clinical presentation. Coarsened exact matching was used to match participants referred for diagnostic imaging with participants not referred for diagnostic imaging on baseline variables including participant demographics, pain characteristics, and clinical history. Mixed linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of imaging on back pain intensity and disability at two-weeks, three-months, and one-year, and on global perceived effect and satisfaction with care at two-weeks.

Results

2162 patients were included, with 24.1% referred for imaging. Near perfect balance between matched groups was achieved for baseline variables except age and leg pain. Participants referred for imaging had slightly higher back pain intensity at two-weeks (0.4, 95%CI: 0.1, 0.8) and one-year (0.4, 95%CI: 0.0, 0.7), and disability at two-weeks (5.7, 95%CI: 1.4, 10.0), but the changes are unlikely to be clinically meaningful. No difference between groups was found for the other outcome measures. Similar results were found when sensitivity analysis, adjusted for age and leg pain intensity, was performed.

Conclusions

Diagnostic imaging did not result in better clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care. These results support that current guideline recommendations against routine imaging apply equally to chiropractic practice.

Restoring cervical lordosis by cervical extension traction methods in the treatment of cervical spine disorders: a systematic review of controlled trials

[Purpose] To systematically review the literature on the use of cervical extension traction methods for increasing cervical lordosis in those with hypolordosis and cervical spine disorders. [Methods] Literature searches for controlled clinical trials were performed in Pubmed, PEDro, Cochrane, and ICL databases. Search terms included iterations related to the cervical spine, neck pain and disorders, and extension traction rehabilitation. [Results] Of 1,001 initially located articles, 9 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The trials demonstrated increases in radiographically measured lordosis of 12-18°, over 5-15 weeks, after 15-60 treatment sessions. Untreated controls/comparison groups not receiving extension traction showed no increase in cervical lordosis. Several trials demonstrated that both traction and comparison treatment groups experienced immediate pain relief. Traction treatment groups maintained their pain and disability improvements up to 1.5 years later. Comparative groups not receiving lordosis improvement experienced regression of symptoms towards pre-treatment values by 1 years' follow-up. [Conclusion] There are several high-quality controlled clinical trials substantiating that increasing cervical lordosis by extension traction as part of a spinal rehabilitation program reduces pain and disability and improves functional measures, and that these improvements are maintained long-term. Comparative groups who receive multimodal rehabilitation but not extension traction experience temporary relief that regresses after treatment cessation.

Radiophobia Overreaction: College of Chiropractors of British Columbia Revoke Full X-Ray Rights Based on Flawed Study and Radiation Fear-Mongering

Fears over radiation have created irrational pressures to dissuade radiography use within chiropractic. Recently, the regulatory body for chiropractors practicing in British Columbia, Canada, the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia (CCBC), contracted Pierre Côté to review the clinical use of X-rays within the chiropractic profession. A "rapid review" was performed and published quickly and included only 9 papers, the most recent dating from 2005; they concluded, "Given the inherent risks of radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine." The CCBC then launched an immediate review of the use of X-rays by chiropractors in their jurisdiction. Member and public opinion were gathered but not presented to their members. On February 4, 2021, the College announced amendments to their Professional Conduct Handbook that revoked X-ray rights for routine/repeat assessment and management of patients with spine disorders. Here, we highlight current and historical evidence that substantiates that X-rays are not a public health threat. We also point out critical and insurmountable flaws in the single paper used to support irrational and unscientific policy that discriminates against chiropractors who practice certain forms of evidence-based X-ray-guided methods.

Radiophobic Fear-Mongering, Misappropriation of Medical References and Dismissing Relevant Data Forms the False Stance for Advocating Against the Use of Routine and Repeat Radiography in Chiropractic and Manual Therapy

There is a faction within the chiropractic profession passionately advocating against the routine use of X-rays in the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with spinal disorders (aka subluxation). These activists reiterate common false statements such as "there is no evidence" for biomechanical spine assessment by X-ray, "there are no guidelines" supporting routine imaging, and also promulgate the reiterating narrative that "X-rays are dangerous." These arguments come in the form of recycled allopathic "red flag only" medical guidelines for spine care, opinion pieces and consensus statements. Herein, we review these common arguments and present compelling data refuting such claims. It quickly becomes evident that these statements are false. They are based on cherry-picked medical references and, most importantly, expansive evidence against this narrative continues to be ignored. Factually, there is considerable evidential support for routine use of radiological imaging in chiropractic and manual therapies for 3 main purposes: 1. To assess spinopelvic biomechanical parameters; 2. To screen for relative and absolute contraindications; 3. To reassess a patient's progress from some forms of spine altering treatments. Finally, and most importantly, we summarize why the long-held notion of carcinogenicity from X-rays is not a valid argument.

The clinical utility of routine spinal radiographs by chiropractors: a rapid review of the literature

Introduction

When indicated by signs or symptoms of potentially serious underlying pathology (red flags), chiropractors can use radiographs to inform their diagnosis. In the absence of red flags, the clinical utility of routine or repeat radiographs to assess the structure and function of the spine is controversial.

Objectives

To determine the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of routine or repeat radiographs (in the absence of red flags) of the cervical, thoracic or lumbar spine for the functional or structural evaluation of the spine. Investigate whether functional or structural findings on repeat radiographs are valid markers of clinically meaningful outcomes. The research objectives required that we determine the validity, diagnostic accuracy and reliability of radiographs for the structural and functional evaluation of the spine.

Evidence review

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to November 25, 2019. We used rapid review methodology recommended by the World Health Organization. Eligible studies (cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, randomized controlled trials, diagnostic and reliability) were critically appraised. Studies of acceptable quality were included in our synthesis. The lead author extracted data and a second reviewer independently validated the data extraction. We conducted a qualitative synthesis of the evidence.

Findings

We identified 959 citations, screened 176 full text articles and critically appraised 23. No relevant studies assessed the clinical utility of routine or repeat radiographs (in the absence of red flags) of the cervical, thoracic or lumbar spine for the functional or structural evaluation of the spine. No studies investigated whether functional or structural findings on repeat radiographs are valid markers of clinically meaningful outcomes. Nine low risk of bias studies investigated the validity (n = 2) and reliability (n = 8) of routine or repeat radiographs. These studies provide no evidence of clinical utility.

Conclusion

We found no evidence that the use of routine or repeat radiographs to assess the function or structure of the spine, in the absence of red flags, improves clinical outcomes and benefits patients. Given the inherent risks of ionizing radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine.

Are Restrictive Medical Radiation Imaging Campaigns Misguided? It Seems So: A Case Example of the American Chiropractic Association's Adoption of "Choosing Wisely"

Since the 1980s, increased utilization of medical radiology, primarily computed tomography, has doubled medically sourced radiation exposures. Ensuing fear-mongering media headlines of iatrogenic cancers from these essential medical diagnostic tools has led the public and medical professionals alike to display escalating radiophobia. Problematically, several campaigns including Image Gently, Image Wisely, and facets of Choosing Wisely propagate fears of all medical radiation, which is necessary for the delivery of effective and efficient health care. Since there are no sound data supporting the alleged risks from low-dose radiation and since there is abundant evidence of health benefits from low-doses, these imaging campaigns seem misguided. Further, thresholds for cancer are 100 to 1000-fold greater than X-rays, which are within the realm of natural background radiation where no harm has ever been validated. Here, we focus on radiographic imaging for use in spinal rehabilitation by manual therapists, chiropractors, and physiotherapists as spinal X-rays represent the lowest levels of radiation imaging and are critical in the diagnosis and management of spine-related disorders. Using a case example of a chiropractic association adopting "Choosing Wisely," we argue that these campaigns only fuel the pervasive radiophobia and continue to constrain medical professionals, attempting to deliver quality care to patients.

Death of the ALARA Radiation Protection Principle as Used in the Medical Sector

ALARA is the acronym for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable." It is a radiation protection concept borne from the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis. There are no valid data today supporting the use of LNT in the low-dose range, so dose as a surrogate for risk in radiological imaging is not appropriate, and therefore, the use of the ALARA concept is obsolete. Continued use of an outdated and erroneous principle unnecessarily constrains medical professionals attempting to deliver high-quality care to patients by leading to a reluctance by doctors to order images, a resistance from patients/parents to receive images, subquality images, repeated imaging, increased radiation exposures, the stifling of low-dose radiation research and treatment, and the propagation of radiophobia and continued endorsement of ALARA by regulatory bodies. All these factors result from the fear of radiogenic cancer, many years in the future, that will not occur. It has been established that the dose threshold for leukemia is higher than previously thought. A low-dose radiation exposure from medical imaging will likely upregulate the body's adaptive protection systems leading to the prevention of future cancers. The ALARA principle, as used as a radiation protection principle throughout medicine, is scientifically defunct and should be abandoned.

Repeat Radiography in Monitoring Structural Changes in the Treatment of Spinal Disorders in Chiropractic and Manual Medicine Practice: Evidence and Safety

There is substantial evidence for normal relationships between spine and postural parameters, as measured from radiographs of standing patients. Sagittal balance, cervical lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, and the more complex understanding of the interrelations between these essential components of normal stance have evolved to where there are known, established thresholds for normalcy. These spinal parameters are reliably measured from X-ray images and serve as goals of care in the treatment of spine and postural disorders. Initial and follow-up spinal imaging by X-ray is thus crucial for the practice of contemporary and evidence-based structural rehabilitation. Recent studies have demonstrated that improvement in the spine and posture by nonsurgical methods offers superior long-term patient outcomes versus conventional methods that only temporarily treat pain/dysfunction. Low-dose radiation from repeated X-ray imaging in treating subluxated patients is substantially below the known threshold for harm and is within background radiation exposures. Since alternative imaging methods are not clinically practical at this time, plain radiography remains the standard for spinal imaging. It is safe when used in a repeated fashion for quantifying pre–post spine and postural subluxation and deformity patterns in the practice of structural correction methods by chiropractic and other manual medicine practices.