Skip to main content

Archived Comments for: The prevalence of the term subluxation in North American English-Language Doctor of chiropractic programs

Back to article

  1. Insufficient evidence was provided to support statements about subluxation

    Michael Haneline, International Medical University

    28 June 2011

    The authors state in their conclusion that ¿The concept of the subluxation in chiropractic is a controversial subject with a paucity of evidence.¿ but do not provide enough evidence to adequately support this statement in their paper. In fact, no definition of subluxation was given in the article and little was mentioned about what evidence exists for or against the use of the term subluxation. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of the usage of subluxation in the North American English-language chiropractic college catalogs and academic bulletins. The authors should have adhered to their predetermined purpose and refrained from hyperbole about the subluxation.

    The following sentence appears to make a key point in the paper, but it is grammatically incomplete and unclear. ¿The most frequently encountered unsubstantiated claim related to the putative clinical meaningfulness of subluxation.¿ Perhaps ¿is¿ should be inserted after ¿claim¿ in order to connect the first half of the sentence with the second half, or additional material should be added after ¿subluxation¿.

    As far as the term ¿subluxation¿ is concerned, it has been defined in multiple ways; some of which are sensible, whereas others are absurd and unsubstantiated. The fact remains that chiropractors and many manual therapists manipulate/adjust the spine to correct spinal dysfunctions comprising abnormalities such as restricted motion segments, muscle tension and pain. Would it not be reasonable to label this type of dysfunction ¿subluxation¿?

    Michael T. Haneline, DC, MPH - Head of Chiropractic
    International Medical University
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Competing interests