Skip to content

Advertisement

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access

What are the risks of manual treatment of the spine? A scoping review for clinicians

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies201725:37

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-017-0168-5

Received: 30 January 2017

Accepted: 8 November 2017

Published: 7 December 2017

Abstract

Background

Communicating to patients the risks of manual treatment to the spine is an important, but challenging element of informed consent. This scoping review aimed to characterise and summarise the available literature on risks and to describe implications for clinical practice and research.

Method

A methodological framework for scoping reviews was followed. Systematic searches were conducted during June 2017. The quantity, nature and sources of literature were described. Findings of included studies were narratively summarised, highlighting key clinical points.

Results

Two hundred and fifty articles were included. Cases of serious adverse events were reported. Observational studies, randomised studies and systematic reviews were also identified, reporting both benign and serious adverse events.

Benign adverse events were reported to occur commonly in adults and children. Predictive factors for risk are unclear, but for neck pain patients might include higher levels of neck disability or cervical manipulation. In neck pain patients benign adverse events may result in poorer short term, but not long term outcomes.

Serious adverse event incidence estimates ranged from 1 per 2 million manipulations to 13 per 10,000 patients. Cases are reported in adults and children, including spinal or neurological problems as well as cervical arterial strokes. Case-control studies indicate some association, in the under 45 years age group, between manual interventions and cervical arterial stroke, however it is unclear whether this is causal. Elderly patients have no greater risk of traumatic injury compared with visiting a medical practitioner for neuro-musculoskeletal problems, however some underlying conditions may increase risk.

Conclusion

Existing literature indicates that benign adverse events following manual treatments to the spine are common, while serious adverse events are rare. The incidence and causal relationships with serious adverse events are challenging to establish, with gaps in the literature and inherent methodological limitations of studies. Clinicians should ensure that patients are informed of risks during the consent process. Since serious adverse events could result from pre-existing pathologies, assessment for signs or symptoms of these is important. Clinicians may also contribute to furthering understanding by utilising patient safety incident reporting and learning systems where adverse events have occurred.

Keywords

Adverse eventsRisksManipulationChiropracticOsteopathyManual therapySpineCervicalVertebral arteryIncident reporting

Background

Great emphasis is placed on the importance of patient-informed choice. Health policy in the United Kingdom states that patients have a right to be given a clear explanation of any treatment proposed, including any risks and alternatives, before they decide whether to agree to treatment [1]. There is evidence of therapeutic benefit whereby, when patients are effectively informed and can exert knowledgeable control over their treatment choices, recovery and pain tolerance may be enhanced, depression prevented, cooperation increased [2] and costs reduced [3].

The question of the risks of manual treatment of the spine, as normally provided by chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists, is a much-debated issue. It has been clearly reported that the risk of major adverse events following manual therapy interventions is low [4], but some argue that the potential for serious harm following some treatment approaches poses an unacceptable risk [5, 6]. Clinicians need to meet the challenge of effectively communicating both the potential benefits and possible risks of proposed interventions. With such opposing views, it may be difficult for clinicians to understand what the existing literature does and does not tell us about risks. While systematic reviews exist for some specific questions about risks of care [4, 712], there has been no broad review that facilitates understanding by clinicians across the subject. The purpose of this scoping review is to map the current literature on safety and risks of manual treatment of the spine in order to identify types and sources of evidence and gaps in the research [13]. There is an emphasis on identifying points with implications for clinical practice [14].

Definitions of what constitutes a ‘risk’ of treatment vary but, in the medical literature, the term ‘adverse event’ is used to refer to iatrogenic occurrences following care. These are untoward, undesirable or detrimental, have an impact on the patient and are caused by a healthcare process rather than the natural process of disease [15]. Further categorisation of the adverse event is usually based on its severity or time course. For manual therapies, a consensus categorisation has been proposed whereby ‘major’ adverse events are medium to long-term, moderate to severe and unacceptable; they normally require further treatment and are serious and distressing. ‘Moderate’ adverse events are as major adverse events but moderate in severity. ‘Mild’ events are short-term, non-serious, the patient’s function remains intact, and they are transient/reversible; no treatment alterations are required because the consequences are short-term and contained [16]. These mild events are often referred to in the literature as ‘benign adverse events’. However, in the literature we reviewed, categorisation does not necessarily map to the above definitions [17]. For the purpose of this review, adverse events are therefore dichotomised into ‘benign’ (mild to moderate, transient) and ‘serious’ (moderate to major, long-term) adverse events.

Review methodology

The review followed a methodological framework recommended for scoping reviews [18].

Identification of the research question

The review was broad in scope and evaluated the question, ‘What are the risks of manual treatment of the spine?’. This question was identified by the Council of the Royal College of Chiropractors of the United Kingdom (https://rcc-uk.org) in response to, and informed by, requests from its clinician members.

Identification of relevant studies

Searches were carried out by one author (GS) of MEDLINE (1946-current), EMBASE (1947-current) and of the Cochrane Library in June 2017, using search terms relating to ‘chiropractic, osteopathy, manual therapy, spinal manipulation and spinal mobilisation’ combined with search terms relating to ‘safety, risk, side-effects, adverse events, harm, death, and also to specific conditions (‘dural tear, intra-cranial hypotension, stroke, cervical artery, vertebral artery, carotid artery, paralysis, quadriplegia, Brown Sequard and cauda equina syndrome)’. An example search strategy is provided in Additional file 1: Appendix 1. The related articles search features were used and bibliographies of all relevant articles were scrutinised.

Study selection

Retrieved articles were screened and evaluated for eligibility by one author (GS). Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies are provided in Table 1. Retrieved references were exported into EndNote X7 (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, USA). Titles and abstracts were screened. Full text of potentially relevant articles was obtained and evaluated for eligibility.
Table 1

Eligibility criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies

Criteria for study inclusion

Criteria for study exclusion

Participants

 

 • Patients receiving spinal manual treatment

 • Health or legal professionals reporting upon patients receiving spinal manual treatment

 

Study design

Article type

 • Studies whose primary aims address risks of care &/or adverse events & that are:

  • Meta-analyses

  • Systematic reviewsa

  • Controlled studies

  • Surveys

  • Cohort studies

  • Case reportsb

  • Scientific reportsc

• Reviews (without a systematic approach)d

• Editorials, commentaries or opinion articlesd

• Letterse, correspondences or author responses

• Studies whose primary aims address clinical outcomes (but may report occurrence of adverse events)f

• Study protocols

• Conference abstractsg

Intervention

Intervention

 • Spinal manual treatment (manipulation or mobilisation), provided by a health professional

• Patient self-manipulation

• Spinal manual treatment provided by a lay-person

Outcomes

Outcomes

 • Adverse events

• Biomechanical or physiological responses as proxy adverse effects

aReviews describing a systematically approached methodology

bPublished as articles, letters or conference abstracts (enabling full breadth of types of adverse events to be evaluated)

cDescribing a rigorous methodology

dWould contribute limited new insights to the literature reviewed

eUnless presenting a new case-report

fLimited utility for gaining new insights if not a primary consideration in study design

gExcluding case reports, where conference abstracts were included

Charting data

The quantity, nature and sources of literature were described. Data from eligible studies were extracted by the first reviewer into separate fields of a Microsoft Excel (2013) spreadsheet (Microsoft, Redmond, WA 98052–6399), to enable sorting and grouping by author, date, study design, number of included patients, patient characteristics (age, gender and condition for which seeking care), discipline of treating manual therapist, intervention used, comparison intervention (if any), nature of adverse event/outcome and results reported). Additional categorisation was carried out to enable further sorting into groups of related studies. This included the spinal level treated, any special age group of patients (elderly or child) and whether the adverse event was categorised as benign or serious.

Collating, summarising and reporting results

Data were sorted to enable synthesis and narrative summarisation of reported findings in the two key categories of benign and serious adverse events. Within these, data were further sorted and summarised, where appropriate, according to the spinal level treated, intervention specified, type of adverse event, study design and whether studies reported on elderly patients or children. Findings are presented as ‘manual intervention to the spine’ where manipulation and mobilisation may both be included. Reference to the type of manual therapist providing care is reserved for instances where ‘visits’, as opposed to a specific intervention, are reported in the literature. Summary points for clinicians to consider in their communication of risk to patients are provided below each section.

Review findings

What literature exists on the risks of manual treatments to the spine?

Figure 1 provides the results of the literature searches and assessment for eligibility for inclusion in the review, including reasons for exclusions. Studies excluded following screening of abstracts and following evaluation of full-text articles are listed in Additional file 2: Appendix 2.
Fig. 1

PRISMA flow chart of search results showing sources of records and exclusions at each stage of the review

A total of 250 studies were included. The great majority of these (n = 166) were reports of serious adverse events in case-reports, case-series or retrospective case reviews (including several reviews of cases captured in medico-legal records [1923]) [19184]. These were regularly published as ‘case-reports’ in the form of letters in medical journals (n = 19) [185203] or as abstracts of cases presented at conferences (n = 17) [25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 42, 46, 59, 66, 68, 77, 92, 107, 112, 115, 145, 148].

Thirty four articles, reporting on 31 observational studies, collected patient data prospectively or retrospectively relating to the incidence, nature or predictive factors for the occurrence of benign or serious adverse events following manual treatment to the spine [204237]. These included 8 case-control or case-crossover analyses examining association between serious adverse events and spinal manual treatment, all investigating cervical arterial strokes [208211, 214, 221, 226, 233]. An additional 5 studies surveyed neurologists [238] or manual therapists/manual medicine physicians [78, 239241] about adverse events in their patients that they reported to have occurred following manual treatment to the spine.

Six experimental studies (randomised controlled trials) were reported [242247]. These had primary aims of evaluating the occurrence of adverse events following manipulation, compared with comparator/control interventions.

A substantial quantity of secondary research (n = 43), in the form of systematically approached reviews [248280], clinical practice guidelines [281283] and a scientific report [284], was identified in the literature. Most of this research adopted a broad approach, including studies of varied methodological designs. However, 15 were reviews that only included case reports describing serious adverse events [254, 257259, 261, 264, 266, 267, 272274, 278]. A few systematic reviews (n = 7) carried out meta-analysis, pooling of data or other analytic synthesis of findings of included studies [249, 251253, 272]. One recent systematic review of systematic reviews was identified [270].

Summary of findings reported in the literature

Occurrence of benign adverse events

Benign adverse events were reported to occur frequently following manual interventions to the spine [204, 207, 215, 222225, 227, 228, 230232, 234, 237, 242244, 249, 250, 253, 256, 260, 262, 263, 276, 282]. A number of randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) [242247, 285] and non-randomised prospective studies [204, 207, 215, 222, 225, 228, 230232, 234] report that benign adverse events occurred in 23–83% of adult patients. The lowest incidence was reported in an RCT of patients with migraine, treated using a specific chiropractic manual thrust technique (Gonstead) [242], and the highest incidence was reported in an online patient survey following treatment in an osteopathic teaching clinic [225]. The remaining studies consistently reported an incidence of benign adverse events of approximately 30–50% following manual treatment for back and/or neck pain. Sample sizes among the RCTs ranged from 70 to 767 and, for prospective cohort studies, from 68 to 19,722. No serious adverse events were observed in these studies. A systematic review that pooled data from existing RCTs and cohort studies (including studies with primarily clinical outcomes that reported adverse event rate) estimated an incidence of mild-moderate transient adverse events of approximately 22–41% following manual therapy (not limited to spinal treatment). A further recent systematic review and meta-analysis graded the quality of the body of evidence as ‘high’ that spinal manipulation is commonly associated with transient, minor, musculoskeletal harms [271].

Benign adverse events were reported to be transient, and most commonly consisted of increased musculoskeletal pain or discomfort [204, 207, 215, 222, 225, 228, 231, 232, 234, 242], stiffness [247] and headache [207, 234, 242, 247]. Other benign adverse events reported in patients who received treatment for neck pain included feeling tired [228], faint, dizzy or lightheaded [229, 234] and tingling or numbness in the upper limb [228]. The intensity of adverse events was predominantly minor or moderate [222, 231, 232, 246] although more intense or severe transient adverse events have been reported in 5–13% of patients [215, 228]. Comparable levels of benign adverse events (29%) were reported among patients receiving chiropractic care for scoliosis [237], while lower incidence (23%) was reported among migraineurs [242] and among infants under 3 years of age (1%) (however, dependence on parental reporting makes direct comparison with studies of adults problematic). The majority of transient side-effects were reported to resolve within 24 h [207, 215, 222, 224, 231, 232].

Box 1. The occurrence of benign adverse events following manual interventions to the spine: Summary of implications for clinical practice.

 • Benign adverse events are common, affecting 23–83% of adult patients;

 • These are mostly mild-moderate, transient (usually resolve within 24 h) and commonly include musculoskeletal pain, stiffness and headache;

 • Dizziness, tiredness, feeling faint/lightheaded or tingling in the arms might also be experienced following neck treatment.

Predicting benign adverse events

Few studies have evaluated factors that may enable prediction of the occurrence of benign adverse events in patients following manual interventions to the spine. However, in one neck pain study, it was reported that a moderate-severe level of disability at baseline was associated with greater likelihood (odds ratio = 3.15, 95% confidence interval 1.01–9.80) of adverse neurologic symptoms (dizziness, nausea, visual disturbance, tinnitus, extremity weakness or confusion) following chiropractic care [244].

The contribution of specific manual interventions to benign adverse events is also poorly understood, with conflicting results reported among randomised studies [244, 246, 247]. One RCT found that cervical manipulation increased the risk of any sort of adverse event, of any severity (although none were deemed serious) and commencing at any time point following treatment, compared with cervical mobilisation [244]. Effect estimates were greater when adverse events (neck pain, stiffness/soreness, radiating pain, tiredness/fatigue, headache or neurologic symptoms) rated 2 or higher on a Numeric Rating Scale, and where these symptoms commenced within 24 h following treatment. However, another study found that, for patients with spinal pain in any region, there was no increased risk for adverse event occurrence, onset or duration following manipulation compared with a sham intervention [247]. Similarly, a further RCT, evaluating different components of manual therapy, reported that the incidence of benign adverse events was no different when either manipulation or stretching were excluded from a multimodal intervention [246]. These findings raise the possibility that adverse events may, at least in part, be due to non-specific effects or to natural progression of symptoms rather than to spinal manipulation. A systematic review and meta-analysis was able to perform limited pooling of RCT data to evaluate some adverse events following cervical spinal manipulation, compared with either cervical mobilisation or manipulation elsewhere in the spine (thoracic). They reported a significantly greater risk of transient neurological symptoms following cervical manipulation (pooled relative risk = 1.96, 95% confidence interval 1.09–3.54, p < 0.05), but no greater risk of increased neck pain. The strength of this evidence was however reduced by limitations in the included studies [249].

The association of benign adverse events with patient outcomes is also not fully understood. In patients with neck pain, one study reported poorer pain and disability outcomes and also lower patient satisfaction in those patients who reported benign adverse events following cervical manipulation [243]. However, a further study found that while neck pain outcomes were also poorer in the short term for patients who experienced adverse events, at 3 months there was no association between worse outcomes and adverse events [227].

Box 2. Predicting benign adverse events and patient outcome following manual interventions to the spine: Summary of implications for clinical practice.

 • Patients presenting with moderate to high levels of neck disability may have an approximately three times greater likelihood of experiencing transient neurological symptoms (dizziness, nausea, visual disturbance, tinnitus, extremity weakness or confusion) following manual cervical treatment compared to patients with mild levels of neck disability;

 • It is not clear whether particular manual interventions have a greater risk for benign adverse events. Cervical manipulation may carry a greater risk compared with cervical mobilisation or thoracic manipulation in patients with neck pain. Non-specific effects or natural progression may also contribute to reporting of benign adverse events;

 • In neck pain patients, benign adverse events may result in poorer short-term outcomes, but do not seem to influence longer-term outcome.

Serious adverse events

RCTs and prospective cohort studies investigating the risks associated with manual spinal therapy for back and/or neck pain have not detected any serious adverse events following treatment [204, 207, 215, 222, 228, 231, 232, 234, 242, 243, 246, 247]. This suggests that serious adverse events are rare. Consequently, accurate calculations of risk rates are problematic, but failure to detect serious events does not confirm zero risk. Their design (sample size) renders RCTs and many cohort studies unlikely to capture very rarely occurring adverse events. Furthermore, in RCTs, strict inclusion/exclusion criteria and standardisation of treatments means that participants may not reflect the heterogeneity of real patient populations (e.g. their comorbidities) or of the treatments that they receive [286, 287].

Reported estimates of the incidence of serious adverse events vary, with estimates ranging from 1 per 2 million manipulations [276] up to 13 per 10,000 patients. Variation may be due to different statistical methods of estimation, estimates being based on calculations from different sized samples, evaluation of different types of patient, intervention or adverse event, and the fact that incidence may be calculated for serious adverse events following one manipulation, one visit, or per patient over several visits. A systematic review that pooled and analysed existing data utilised a method for estimating the risk of a major adverse event, expressing the upper 95% confidence interval. Risk estimated from cohort studies was approximately 0.01% (1 per 10,000) patients or 0.007% (7 per 100,000) treatments, when the estimate was based on zero cases from 22,833 patients receiving 42,451 treatments. Risk estimated from RCTs was approximately 0.13% (13 per 10,000) patients, based on zero cases from 2301 patients. While estimates indicate the relative rarity of serious adverse events, there are nevertheless a number of retrospective surveys [23, 142, 212, 239], case reports [19184] and systematic reviews of case reports [266, 272, 278] describing serious complications following manual interventions to the spine.

The more frequently reported serious adverse events, attributed either to spinal manipulation or to chiropractor visits, include spinal cord injury following cervical, thoracic or lumbar manipulation (myelopathy, quadriplegia, paraplegia or Brown-Sequard syndrome) [20, 27, 29, 35, 38, 46, 47, 67, 73, 77, 90, 102, 105, 106, 108, 118, 125, 126, 139, 146, 154, 162, 167, 169, 171, 177, 183, 184, 190, 194, 197], cauda equina syndrome [19, 27, 29, 43, 58, 64, 109, 125, 143, 195, 203], dural tears (resulting in intracranial hypotension) [49, 50, 61, 68, 70, 95, 111, 119, 140, 163, 165, 186, 189, 193], epidural haemotomas [99, 101, 104, 146, 153, 159, 166, 168, 173, 184, 197, 288], pneumothorax or haematothorax [273], exacerbation of lumbar disk herniations [19, 23, 27, 29, 58, 74, 92, 109, 139, 143, 200, 203, 270] and, in relation to the cervical spine, cervical artery dissections [2326, 28, 30, 3234, 36, 37, 40, 42, 4448, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 5963, 66, 72, 76, 7982, 8486, 88, 89, 9194, 96, 97, 100, 107, 108, 112, 113, 115117, 120, 122124, 127, 129, 130, 132136, 138, 141, 142, 144, 148, 149, 152, 155, 161, 162, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178182, 187, 188, 192, 196, 199, 201, 202] and exacerbation of cervical disk herniations [39, 55, 73, 92, 121, 126, 139, 169, 177, 191]. Serious neurological consequences of spinal nerve root injury are also reported, including diaphragmatic paralysis resulting from C3–5 (cervical spinal nerves) injury [69, 83, 114, 128, 131, 145, 151, 158]. Reporting of serious adverse events in the literature typically takes the form of either case reports or retrospective surveys. The principle limitation of what can be inferred from these is the difficulty of establishing causal relationships between the intervention and the adverse event. While a causative association cannot be proven, it also cannot be discounted. Further limitations include potentially incomplete or inaccurate reporting of the patient presentation prior to receiving care (i.e. whether they had pre-existing risk factors or indicators of a pathological process already underway) and scant details of the care provider or the intervention received [278, 280]. These limitations may result from the fact that the adverse event is typically reported by the medical specialist who has subsequently managed the patient and not by the manual therapist who delivered the intervention.

The best study design for evaluating the association of rare adverse responses to interventions is the case-control study [289]. With this design, a group of patients that has the condition being investigated (the ‘case’ group) is identified. A comparison group that does not have the condition but that is otherwise as similar as possible (the ‘control group’), is also selected. Analysis measures the frequency of exposure to the intervention in both groups to determine whether more of the ‘cases’ received it compared with the ‘controls’. Of the serious adverse events that have been reported following spinal manipulation, only cervical artery dissection has been investigated in this way [208211, 221, 226, 233], therefore there is no data to enable accurate estimates of the level of association for any of the other serious adverse events.

Box 3. The occurrence of serious adverse events following manual interventions to the spine: Summary of implications for clinical practice.

 • Serious adverse events appear to be rare and, as a result, estimates of the level of risk are problematic;

 • However, cases of serious adverse events, including serious spinal or neurological problems as well as strokes affecting arteries in the neck, have been reported;

 • Serious adverse events could result from pre-existing pathologies, therefore assessment for signs or symptoms of these is important;

 • Where a serious adverse event is thought to have occurred following manual spinal intervention, use of a patient safety incident reporting system enables dissemination of accurate case details.

Cervical arterial stroke

Eight articles reported six case-control or case-crossover studies and one re-analysis of existing data [208] that specifically examined the association of cervical arterial strokes with prior visits to a chiropractor [208211, 214, 221, 226] or with spinal manipulative therapy [233]. There are some differences between these in the classification of cervical arterial stroke [208] or of the intervention (visits to a chiropractor has been reported to be a poor proxy measure, used in some studies, for whether cervical manipulation took place [221]). Nevertheless, most reported consistent findings whereby cervical artery dissection patients under 45 years of age were between 3 and 12 times more likely to have received chiropractic or spinal manipulative therapy than the control groups to which they were compared [208, 209, 211, 214, 226, 233]. A single, recent, case-control study did not report a significant association, but contained very few cervical artery dissection patients in the under 45 age group [221]. While case-control studies can demonstrate an association between an intervention and an adverse outcome, they cannot provide evidence that this association is causative. Three studies also examined the association between cervical artery stroke and visits to a primary care physician, reporting a similar [209] or greater [221] risk of vertebral artery stroke and a similar risk of carotid artery stroke [211] compared with chiropractor visits. It is proposed, therefore, that chiropractic care did not pose an excess risk of cervical artery stroke and that headache or neck pain from an ongoing cervical artery stroke may have caused people to seek care from either a chiropractor or medical physician [209, 211, 289]. Some recent evidence supporting this postulation exists, whereby carotid artery stroke was more strongly associated with both chiropractor and primary care physician visits when neck pain or headache were symptoms, compared to when they were not [211]. Whether or not there is a causative relationship between chiropractic and cervical artery stroke, the association that exists indicates the potential for patients who may have an ongoing stroke to present to practitioners who utilise spinal manipulation. It is proposed, therefore, that careful screening for signs or symptoms of cervical artery stroke is crucial in patients presenting with neck pain, headaches or prior to receiving cervical manipulation for any reason, particularly in the under 45 age group. In addition, it has also been recommended that patients should be screened, prior to cervical manipulation, for the presence of known risk factors for cervical artery dissection [290], since this may be present in the absence of any signs or symptoms.

Box 4. The association of cervical arterial strokes with manual interventions to the cervical spine: Summary of implications for clinical practice.

 • There is some association, in the under 45 years age group, between manual interventions and stroke affecting arteries in the neck, however this is similar to that for medical practitioner visits;

 • It is possible that the manual intervention did not cause the stroke, but that the stroke caused neck pain, for which the patient visited a practitioner;

 • It is essential that careful screening for known neck artery stroke risk factors, or signs or symptoms that there is a problem, is performed prior to manual treatment of the neck.

Serious adverse events in children

The few studies evaluating adverse events following chiropractic care in children indicate the occurrence of benign, mild-moderate adverse events (including soreness, headache, dizziness, vomiting and excessive crying [218, 224]. While the paucity of existing reports [291] suggests that serious adverse events are rare, systematic reviews of studies in infants and children [279] identified descriptions of serious neurological consequences (quadriplegia, paraplegia, impaired level of consciousness, brainstem/cerebellum signs and subarachnoid haemorrhage), fractures (atlanto-axial dislocation, legs, ribs), haematothorax and respiratory failure following treatment from a variety of manual therapy practitioners, including three deaths. In many of the serious cases, there was pre-existing pathology that included congenital disorders (amyoplasia, torticollis, osteogenesis imperfecta), disorders of the nervous system (spinal cord astrocytoma, history of cranial nerve signs) and head trauma. Careful screening for signs or symptoms of pre-existing pathology is, thus, essential before treating children. A recently updated systematic review and Delphi process to inform best practice care of children emphasises the need for a thorough case history and examination, and specifies red flags and other particular considerations of which clinicians should be aware when assessing and managing children [283].

Box 5. Adverse events in children following manual spinal interventions - Summary of implications for clinical practice.

 • Children may experience benign, mild-moderate adverse events following manual interventions to the spine (including soreness, headache, dizziness, vomiting and excessive crying);

 • Cases of serious adverse events in children that may have followed manual, spinal care, including serious neurological or skeletal consequences, have been reported;

 • It is possible in some cases that the child had pre-existing pathology. Conducting a thorough case history and examination is thus essential before treating children.

Serious adverse events in older patients

Few studies have evaluated adverse events following manual spinal care in elderly patients. A single RCT evaluating adverse events in elderly participants with chronic neck pain reported that musculoskeletal adverse events were common with both spinal manual treatment and exercise interventions [245]. Case reports of serious adverse events in elderly patients, including osteoporosis-related compression fractures, do exist [65, 257]. A retrospective survey of 6,669,603 patients, aged between 66 and 99 years, with a visit to either a chiropractor or a primary care physician for a neuromusculoskeletal condition, evaluated the risk of traumatic injury to the head, neck or trunk presenting within the following 7 days [235]. Overall, the risk following a chiropractic visit was lower than that following a visit to a primary care physician, however, the likelihood of injury following chiropractic care was increased among patients with a chronic coagulation defect, inflammatory spondylopathy, osteoporosis, aortic aneurysm and dissection, or long-term use of anticoagulant therapy. A recently updated systematic review and Delphi process to inform best practice care of elderly patients concluded that there was no evidence for increased risk of serious adverse events, compared with the adult population in general, but specifies red flags and other particular considerations of which clinicians should be aware in the assessment and management of elderly patients [282]. These specific risk factors should therefore be considered when evaluating elderly patients prior to manual interventions.

A further report carried out a similar comparison in 1,157,475 neck pain patients of the same age group for risk of cervical artery stroke following chiropractic or primary care physician visits, concluding that there was little difference [236]. This is in accordance with case-control evidence evaluating cervical artery stroke following spinal manipulative therapy which indicates an association only in younger patients (under the age of 45) [289].

Box 6. Adverse events in elderly patients following manual spinal interventions - Summary of implications for clinical practice.

 • There does not seem to be any greater risk of traumatic injury for elderly patients visiting a chiropractor compared with visiting a medical practitioner for neuro-musculoskeletal problems;

 • Some underlying conditions may increase risk. It is essential to screen carefully for any such potential risk factors before treating elderly patients.

Discussion

Implications for clinical practice and for the relevant professions

A sizeable body of literature, with primary aims of evaluating safety and risks of manual treatment to the spine, was identified and characterised. Summaries of reported findings that may have implications for clinical practice (e.g. obtaining informed consent, assessment of patients for risk factors or indicators of underlying pathology) were compiled. However, limitations inherent in the design of studies that evaluate adverse events makes it difficult to establish firm conclusions.

The existing literature has implications for manual therapists in terms of communicating the risk of adverse events to patients. Evidence from the chiropractic profession suggests that many clinicians do not adequately communicate the risks of serious adverse events to their patients [292, 293]. While they agree that disclosure of risks is a moral and ethical part of care, concerns about increasing patient anxiety and possible refusal of care prevent them from doing so, even though there is evidence that the refusal of care rate following risk disclosure is low [294]. Chiropractic patients were found to perceive informed consent as a process and can be educated about the risks associated with treatment while satisfying the legal requirements of informed consent [295] and there is evidence that patients benefit from effective, informed decision- making [2, 3]. An important area for future research is to investigate how risk information may best be communicated to patients prior to receiving manual spinal care.

In addition to the implications for clinical practice that are described above, the relevant professions should adopt accurate reporting of cases where adverse events have occurred to provide a clearer understanding of the relevant facts. One mechanism for reporting is the use of patient safety incident reporting systems where clinicians may anonymously describe the circumstances around adverse events, enabling direct dissemination of information to peers and analysis by system operators. The Chiropractic Patient Incident Reporting and Learning System (CPiRLS) provides such a tool, enabling chiropractors to share their collective experience of adverse events and the system operators to develop and publish safer practice measures based on reporting trends [www.cpirls.org] [296].

Implications for future research

Benign adverse events following manual spinal treatments have been relatively well characterised among adult patients. Evidence has been rated as ‘high quality’, based on consistent findings of both RCTs and observational studies that transient benign adverse effects are common [271]. There are, however, gaps in the available literature relating to prediction of adverse events. While there are some indications for the role of baseline symptom characteristics in predicting adverse events in neck pain patients [244], this has not been investigated among patients with spinal pain in other regions. Some studies report that the type of manual spinal treatment applied may predict the occurrence of benign adverse events, however indirectness in comparisons between studies and inconsistency in findings [244, 246, 247, 249] limit understanding. Further well-designed RCTs could establish causality between different interventions and benign adverse events, but due to their lack of generalisability to real patient populations, should be considered alongside observational studies. There is limited literature available relating to the occurrence of benign adverse events in special patient populations. Among elderly patients, only one RCT has evaluated the occurrence of benign adverse events following cervical manipulation; treatments to other spinal regions or in patients with other presenting conditions have not been studied. Among children, only one retrospective study has evaluated the occurrence of benign adverse effects [224]. Further prospective studies are needed to enable the responses of children to spinal manual treatments to be better understood.

The incidence and causal relationships between manual spinal treatments and serious adverse events are very challenging to establish due to the inherent methodological limitations of studies published to date. While a range of case-reports, case-series and case-reviews suggest that serious, sometimes catastrophic medical conditions have arisen in patients who have received manual spinal treatments, their methodological limitations mean that causality or non-causality cannot be established. RCTs and cohort studies are unlikely to detect the occurrence of very rare adverse events. The best study design to capture associations between interventions and rare adverse events is the case-control study. These have begun to elucidate associations between manual spinal treatment and cervical arterial stroke (the most commonly reported putative serious adverse event) in younger adults [208211, 214, 221, 226, 233], but this study design cannot test causality and there are still issues interpreting the reported associations relating to methods of classification of strokes included [208] and to whether cervical manipulation was performed during recorded visits [221]. Other, more commonly reported, serious adverse events include intervertebral disk herniations, cauda equina syndrome, spinal cord injuries, dural tears associated with intracranial hypotension and phrenic nerve paralysis. However, there have been no investigations of association of these with spinal manual treatment utilising case-control study design, thus this relationship is unknown. Such studies also offer the possibility of stratification by age or other characteristics of participants, further elucidating the occurrence of serious adverse events in different patient populations.

Several secondary studies have taken the approach of pooling data from primary studies [249, 271] including RCTs, and cohort studies of clinical effectiveness. This can provide useful information from larger data sets, but necessitates consistent and accurate classification and reporting of adverse events in primary studies which has been reported to be limited [249, 271].

While 42 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified, some did appraise the quality of individual studies although, in reporting of findings, greater emphasis was placed on this for clinical outcomes than for adverse event outcomes. However, very few [249, 251, 269, 271, 281] graded quality across the body of evidence, limiting confidence in reported findings of other reviews. Future systematic reviews should therefore carry out thorough and transparent grading of both risk of bias in individual studies and also quality across the evidence reviewed [297, 298].

Study limitations

The methodological framework for scoping reviews proposed by Arksey and O’Malley was followed for this review [18]. Within this, the principal limitation was that screening of records, selection for inclusion in the review and extraction of relevant data was performed by a single reviewer (for reasons of feasibility). A duplicate process would have increased confidence that studies were correctly included or excluded and that data were extracted accurately. The likelihood of incorrect study selection was reduced by adherence to detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, some uncertainties were encountered in relation to assignation of reviews as systematic or non-systematic. This was due to the fact that some were not described as systematic reviews, yet did describe systematic approaches to some aspects of their methodology. Where this occurred, a conservative approach was taken of including all reviews that described, as a minimum, a systematic search strategy. This measure reduced the likelihood that valid studies failed to be included and the risk of omitting relevant information from the synthesis of findings.

A further limitation was that the quality of included studies, or of the body of evidence, was not appraised, although this is not considered essential to scoping reviews [14, 18]. The aim of this review was to characterise a broad and heterogenous body of literature relating to adverse events, whereas evidence quality appraisal usually addresses narrowly specified research questions [297]. Limitations in the evidence are described in the context of inherent weaknesses of study designs and gaps in the literature. However, it should be recognised that gaps in the evidence-base due to poor methodological quality within included studies are not identified.

The Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework for scoping studies [18] includes an optional final stage of a consultation exercise. This was not included here, but could have contributed to strengthening the focus on clinical implications, areas of uncertainty for clinicians and implementation of recommendations in practice.

Conclusions

Benign adverse events are common following manual treatment to the spine [204, 207, 215, 222225, 227, 228, 230232, 234, 237, 242244, 249, 250, 253, 256, 260, 262, 263, 276, 282]. These are usually mild and transient. Serious adverse events appear to be rare and are usually documented as case-reports, case series or retrospective surveys, making it difficult to quantify their occurrence or to establish causality. Nevertheless, there are reports of serious adverse events that may have followed manual treatments to the spine in both children and adults [19184]. A greater body of evidence, in the form of case-control studies [208211, 214, 221, 226, 233], indicates an association between chiropractic visits or spinal manipulation and vertebral artery stroke in younger adults, but also suggests that this may not be a causal relationship. There are substantial gaps in the literature regarding the association between manual spinal care and all other reported serious adverse events. It seems possible that pre-existing pathology may raise the risk of some of these events occurring, therefore detailed screening for known risk factors is essential prior to applying any manual spinal treatment to a patient of any age [282, 283, 290].

The existing literature has implications for manual therapists in terms of communicating the risk of adverse events to patients, and an important area for future research is to investigate how risk information may best be communicated to patients prior to receiving manual spinal care.

Clinicians can also help to elucidate uncertainties that arise around serious adverse events due to inaccurate case-reporting by disseminating their own case details first-hand. The use of patient safety incident reporting systems, such as CPiRLS [296], provide an anonymous way to share information where adverse events have occurred and to learn from these, and should be utilised routinely to enhance patient safety.

Abbreviations

CPiRLS: 

Chiropractic patient incident reporting and learning system

RCT(s): 

Randomised controlled trial(s)

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The review was not commissioned and no funding was received.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

GS conceived the study, undertook the searches, synthesised the findings and undertook the first draft of the manuscript. RF reviewed and revised the manuscript. Both authors approved the final version.

Authors’ information

GS is a chiropractor and is the Director of Research and a Trustee of the Royal College of Chiropractors. She also sits on the General Chiropractic Council of the United Kingdom and has interest in promoting evidence-informed patient safety information to clinicians to improve clinical practice. RF is Chief Executive of The Royal College of Chiropractors, a biologist and an educationalist with interests in professional development and the safety and quality of patient care. He was involved in the development of the Chiropractic Patient Incident Reporting and Learning System. The authors undertook this review in response to many requests received from chiropractors for information about what to communicate to patients regarding the risks of manual treatment to the spine.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

GS is a chiropractor and a trustee of the Royal College of Chiropractors. RF is the Chief Executive of the Royal College of Chiropractors. The Royal College of Chiropractors was involved in the development of the Chiropractic Patient Incident Reporting and Learning System and is a licensor of its use. The Royal College of Chiropractors is a co-funder of Chiropractic and Manual Therapies.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
The Royal College of Chiropractors, Chiltern Chambers

References

  1. Health, D.o. The Patient’s charter. In: D.o. Health, editor. . London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office; 1991.Google Scholar
  2. Waller BN, Repko RA. Informed consent: good medicine, dangerous side effects. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2008;17(1):66–74.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Oshima Lee E, Emanuel EJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(1):6–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnes D, et al. Adverse events and manual therapy: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2010;15(4):355–63.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Ernst E. Spinal manipulation: are the benefits worth the risks? Expert Rev Neurother. 2007;7(11):1451–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Wand BM, Heine PJ, O’Connell NE. Should we abandon cervical spine manipulation for mechanical neck pain? Yes. BMJ. 2012;344:e3679.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Chung CL, et al. The association between cervical spine manipulation and carotid artery dissection: a systematic review of the literature. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2015;38(9):672–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Ernst E. Manipulation of the cervical spine: a systematic review of case reports of serious adverse events, 1995-2001. Med J Aust. 2002;176(8):376–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Oliphant D. Safety of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar disk herniations: a systematic review and risk assessment. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2004;27(3):197–210.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Puentedura EJ, O’Grady WH. Safety of thrust joint manipulation in the thoracic spine: a systematic review. J Man Manip Ther. 2015;23(3):154–61.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Todd AJ, et al. Adverse events due to chiropractic and other manual therapies for infants and children: a review of the literature. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2015;38(9):699–712.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Tuchin P. A systematic literature review of intracranial hypotension following chiropractic. Int J Clin Pract. 2014;68(3):396–402.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Daudt HM, van Mossel C, Scott SJ. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team's experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:48.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Tricco AC, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Walshe K. Adverse events in health care: issues in measurement. Qual Health Care. 2000;9(1):47–52.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Carnes D, Mullinger B, Underwood M. Defining adverse events in manual therapies: a modified Delphi consensus study. Man Ther. 2010;15(1):2–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Gorrell LM, et al. The reporting of adverse events following spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials-a systematic review. Spine J. 2016;16(9):1143–51.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: toward a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Boucher P, Robidoux S. Lumbar disc herniation and cauda equina syndrome following spinal manipulative therapy: a review of six court decisions in Canada. J Forensic Legal Med. 2014;22:159–69.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Epstein N, Forte Esq C. Medicolegal corner: quadriplegia following chiropractic manipulation. Surg Neurol Int. 2013;4(SUPPL5):S327–9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M. Stroke, cerebral artery dissection, and cervical spine manipulation therapy. J Neurol. 2002;249(8):1098–104.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M. Unpredictability of cerebrovascular ischemia associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy: a review of sixty-four cases after cervical spine manipulation. Spine. 2002;27(1):49–55.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Jevne J, Hartvigsen J, Christensen HW. Compensation claims for chiropractic in Denmark and Norway 2004-2012. Chiropr Man Therap. 2014:37.Google Scholar
  24. Albuquerque FC, et al. Craniocervical arterial dissections as sequelae of chiropractic manipulation: patterns of injury and management. J Neurosurg. 2011;115(6):1197–205.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Amin S, et al. Dissection of right internal carotid artery and extensive infarction of right side of the brain following chiropractic vibration therapy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2017;59:69–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Amin S, et al. Paediatric arterial ischaemic stroke secondary to internal carotid artery dissection following chiropractic activation therapy. Int J Stroke. 2016;11:144.Google Scholar
  27. Balblanc JC, Pretot C, Ziegler F. Vascular complication involving the conus medullaris or cauda equina after vertebral manipulation for an L4-L5 disk herniation. Revue du rhumatisme (English ed). 1998;65(4):279–82.Google Scholar
  28. Beatty RA. Dissecting hematoma of the internal carotid artery following chiropractic cervical manipulation. J Trauma. 1977;17(3):248–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Beck JA, Thomas JG. Incomplete paraplegia after chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy: a case report. PM and R. 2010;2(9):S179.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Braun IF, et al. Brain stem infarction due to chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine. South Med J. 1983;76(12):1507–10.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Broodie-Murray N, Taxel P. Unrecognized vertebral fracture worsened by spinal manipulation. Endocr Rev. 2015;36Google Scholar
  32. Caggiula M, et al. Crescendo transient ischemic attack and recurrent headache as symptoms of postpartum spontaneous internal carotid artery dissection. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2010;29:92.Google Scholar
  33. Carmody E, Buckley P, Hutchinson M. Basilar artery occlusion following chiropractic cervical manipulation. Ir Med J. 1987;80(9):259–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Carprieaux M, et al. Spontaneous bilateral carotid artery dissection following cervical manipulation. Legal Med (Tokyo, Japan). 2012;14(5):249–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Chakraverty J, et al. Spinal cord injury following chiropractic manipulation to the neck. Acta radiol (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987). 2011;52(10):1125–7.Google Scholar
  36. Chang CA, et al. Isolated Horner syndrome from an elongated Styloid process (eagle syndrome). J Neuro-ophthalmol. 2015;35(4):387–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Chen WL, et al. Vertebral artery dissection and cerebellar infarction following chiropractic manipulation. EMJ. 2006;23(1):e1.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Chung OM. MRI confirmed cervical cord injury caused by spinal manipulation in a Chinese patient. Spinal Cord. 2002;40(4):196–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Cicconi M, Mangiulli T, Bolino G. Onset of complications following cervical manipulation due to malpractice in osteopathic treatment: a case report. Med Sci Law. 2014;54(4):230–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Cortazzo JM, Tom KB. Vertebral artery dissection following chiropractic manipulation. Am J Emerg Med. 1998;16(6):619–20.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Cunningham, J., W. Hoskins, and S. Ferris, Upper trunk brachial plexus palsy following chiropractic manipulation. Front Neurol, 2016. 7 (NOV).Google Scholar
  42. Dahms MJ, et al. Vertebral artery dissection presenting with 5th and 6th cervical root lesion without cerebral ischemia. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2011;31:107.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Dan NG, Saccasan PA. Serious complications of lumbar spinal manipulation. Med J Aust. 1983;2(12):672–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Dandamudi VS, Thaler DE, Malek AM. Cerebral embolus following chiropractic manipulation in a patient with a calcified carotid artery. J Neuroimaging. 2013;23(3):429–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Davidson KC, Weiford EC, Dixon GD. Traumatic vertebral artery pseudoaneurysm following chiropractic manipulation. Radiology. 1975;115(3):651–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Deputy S. Cervical spine infraction following chiropractor manipulation of the neck. J Child Neurol. 2014;29(10):1402.Google Scholar
  47. Deputy SR. Arm weakness in a child following chiropractor manipulation of the neck. Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2014;21(2):124–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Devereaux MW. The neuro-ophthalmologic complications of cervical manipulation. J Neuro-ophthalmol. 2000;20(4):236–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Domenicucci M, et al. Cervicothoracic epidural hematoma after chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy. Case report and review of the literature. Journal of neurosurgery. Spine. 2007;7(5):571–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Donovan JS, et al. Development of spontaneous intracranial hypotension concurrent with grade IV mobilization of the cervical and thoracic spine: a case report. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(11):1472–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Donzis PB, Factor JS. Visual field loss resulting from cervical chiropractic manipulation. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123(6):851–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Ea H-K, et al. Osteoporotic fracture of the dens revealed by cervical manipulation. Joint Bone Spine. 2004;71(3):246–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Easton JD, Sherman DG. Cervical manipulation and stroke. Stroke. 1977;8(5):594–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Ford FR, Clark D. Thrombosis of the basilar artery with softenings in the cerebellum and brain stem due to manipulation of the neck. A report of two cases with one post-mortem examination. Reasons are given to prove that damage to the vertebral arteries is responsible. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1956;98(1):37–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Foss-Skiftesvik J, et al. Clinical reasoning: partial Horner syndrome and upper right limb symptoms following chiropractic manipulation. Neurology. 2015;84(21):e175–80.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Frisoni GB, Anzola GP. Vertebrobasilar ischemia after neck motion. Stroke. 1991;22(11):1452–60.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Frumkin LR, Baloh RW. Wallenberg’s syndrome following neck manipulation. Neurology. 1990;40(4):611–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Gallinaro P, Cartesegna M. Three cases of lumbar disc rupture and one of cauda equina associated with spinal manipulation (chiropraxis). Lancet (London, England). 1983, 411;1(8321)Google Scholar
  59. Ghanim M, Bergmann S, Mahajerin A. Recurrent stroke in a child with atlantoaxial instability following chiropractic manipulation. Haemophilia. 2017;23:16–7.Google Scholar
  60. Gittinger JW Jr. Occipital infarction following chiropractic cervical manipulation. J Clin Neuro-Ophthalmol. 1986;6(1):11–3.Google Scholar
  61. Gouveia LO, et al. Chiropractic manipulation: reasons for concern? Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2007;109(10):922–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Grayson MF. Horner’s syndrome after manipulation of the neck. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987;295(6610):1381–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Green D, Joynt RJ. Vascular accidents to the brain stem associated with neck manipulation. JAMA (Chicago, Ill). 1959;170(5):522–4.Google Scholar
  64. Haldeman S, Rubinstein SM. Cauda equina syndrome in patients undergoing manipulation of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1992;17(12):1469–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Haldeman S, Rubinstein SM. Compression fractures in patients undergoing spinal manipulative therapy. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1992;15(7):450–4.Google Scholar
  66. Hammond WA. A pain in the neck: vertebral artery dissection after cervical manipulation. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:S370.Google Scholar
  67. Hartel MJ, et al. Partial tetraplegic syndrome as a complication of a mobilizing/manipulating procedure of the cervical spine in a man with Forestier's disease: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2011;5Google Scholar
  68. Hawson J, MacIntyre J, Taylor B. A severe headache after visiting the chiropractor. Intern Med J. 2015;45:10.Google Scholar
  69. Heffner JE. Diaphragmatic paralysis following chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine. Arch Intern Med. 1985;145(3):562–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Heiner JD. Cervical epidural hematoma after chiropractic spinal manipulation. Am J Emerg Med. 2009;27(8):1023. e1-2PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Hillier CE, Gross ML. Sudden onset vomiting and vertigo following chiropractic neck manipulation. Postgrad Med J. 1998;74(875):567–8.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Hoffelner T, et al. Internal jugular vein thrombosis following cervical manipulation. Man Ther. 2009;14(6):706–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Hsieh J-H, Wu C-T, Lee S-T. Cervical intradural disc herniation after spinal manipulation therapy in a patient with ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: a case report and review of the literature. Spine. 2010;35(5):E149–51.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Huang S-L, et al. Characteristics of lumbar disc herniation with exacerbation of presentation due to spinal manipulative therapy. Medicine. 2015;94(12):e661.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Hudkins JR, et al. Partial pancreatic transection due to chiropractic manipulation. Am Surg. 2012;78(9):E393–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Hufnagel A, et al. Stroke following chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine. J Neurol. 1999;246(8):683–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Humbert S, Brandstater ME. Acute cervical myelopathy caused by chiropractic manipulation in a young person with a cervical osteochondroma: a case report. PM and R. 2012;4(10):S368.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Dvorak J. How dangerous is manipulation of the cervical spine? Case report and results of a survey. Man Med. 1985;2:1–4.Google Scholar
  79. Jang Y-J, et al. A case of central retinal artery occlusion after chiropractic manipulation of the neck. KJO. 2012;26(2):132–4.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Jay WM, Shah MI, Schneck MJ. Bilateral occipital-parietal hemorrhagic infarctions following chiropractic cervical manipulation. Semin Ophthalmol. 2003;18(4):205–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Jentzen JM, Amatuzio J, Peterson GF. Complications of cervical manipulation: a case report of fatal brainstem infarct with review of the mechanisms and predisposing factors. J Forensic Sci. 1987;32(4):1089–94.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Jeret JS, Bluth M. Stroke following chiropractic manipulation. Report of 3 cases and review of the literature. Cerebrovasc Dis (Basel, Switzerland). 2002;13(3):210–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. John S, Tavee J. Bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis due to cervical chiropractic manipulation. Neurologist. 2015;19(3):65–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Jones J. Vertebral artery dissection after chiropractor visit. J Investig Med. 2012;60(1):368.Google Scholar
  85. Jumper JM, Horton JC. Central retinal artery occlusion after manipulation of the neck by a chiropractor. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;121(3):321–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Jung SL, et al. Bilateral thalamic infarction after traumatic vertebral artery dissection. The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. J Can Sci Neurol. 2015;42(3):208–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Kaczorowska A, Dąbkowska A. Case of sudden death following rupture of thoracic aortic aneurysm during “a manual therapy” procedure in the spinal area. Archiwum medycyny sadowej i kryminologii. 2014;64(4):246–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Kanshepolsky J, Danielson H, Flynn RE. Vertebral artery insufficiency and cerebellar infarct due to manipulation of the neck. Report of a case. Bull Los Angel Neuro Soc (1936). 1972;37(2):62–6.Google Scholar
  89. Ke J-Q, et al. A case report of locked-in syndrome due to bilateral vertebral artery dissection after cervical spine manipulation treated by arterial Embolectomy. Medicine. 2016;95(5):e2693.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. Kewalramani LS, et al. Myelopathy following cervical spine manipulation. Am J Phys Med. 1982;61(4):165–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Khan AM, et al. Chiropractic sympathectomy: carotid artery dissection with oculosympathetic palsy after chiropractic manipulation of the neck. Mt Sinai J Med NY. 2005;72(3):207–10.Google Scholar
  92. Khoo S, Dimmick S. Injury patterns post spinal manipulation. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57:147.Google Scholar
  93. Krueger BR, Okazaki H. Vertebral-basilar distribution infarction following chiropractic cervical manipulation. Mayo Clin Proc. 1980;55(5):322–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Kunkle EC, Muller JC, Odom GL. Traumatic brain-stem thrombosis: report of a case and analysis of the mechanism of injury. Ann Intern Med. 1952;36(5):1329–35.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Kurbanyan K, Lessell S. Intracranial hypotension and abducens palsy following upper spinal manipulation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(1):153–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  96. Lennington BR, et al. Traumatic pseudoaneurysm of ascending cervical artery in neurofibromatosis: complication of chiropractic manipulation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1980;1(3):269–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Leon-Sanchez A, Cuetter A, Ferrer G. Cervical spine manipulation: an alternative medical procedure with potentially fatal complications. South Med J. 2007;100(2):201–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  98. Lewis M, Grundy D. Vertebral osteomyelitis following manipulation of spondylitic necks--a possible risk. Paraplegia. 1992;30(11):788–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Liberati C, et al. Spinal epidural hematoma as complication in chiropractic and acupuncture: personal experience and literature review. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(4):800.Google Scholar
  100. Licht PB, Christensen HW, Høilund-Carlsen PF. Is cervical spinal manipulation dangerous? J Manip Physiol Ther. 2003;26(1):48–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  101. Lidder S, et al. Acute spinal epidural haematoma causing cord compression after chiropractic neck manipulation: an under-recognised serious hazard? J R Army Med Corps. 2010;156(4):255–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  102. Lipper MH, Goldstein JH, Do HM. Brown-Séquard syndrome of the cervical spinal cord after chiropractic manipulation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1998;19(7):1349–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Livingston MC. Spinal manipulation causing injury. A three-year study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1971;81:82–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Lo WC, Huang GS. Cervical epidural hematoma after naprapthy manipulation in a patient with C-2 fracture and chronic atlanto-axial subluxation - case report. J Surg Assoc Repub China. 1997;30(6):420–3.Google Scholar
  105. Lopez-Gonzalez A, Peris-Celda M. Acute paraplegia after chiropraxis. Eur Spine J. 2010:1–4.Google Scholar
  106. Lopez-Gonzalez A, Peris-Celda M. Acute paraplegia after chiropraxis. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(Suppl 2):S143–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Luke O, Greiss C. Vertebral artery dissection resulting in cerebellar CVA after chiropractic manipulation in a patient with fibromuscular dysplasia. PM and R. 2016;8(9):S181–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  108. Malone DG, et al. Complications of cervical spine manipulation therapy: 5-year retrospective study in a single-group practice. Neurosurg Focus. 2002;13(6):ecp1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  109. Markowitz HD, Dolce DT. Cauda equina syndrome due to sequestrated recurrent disk herniation after chiropractic manipulation. Orthopedics. 1997;20(7):652–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Masneri DA, et al. Trauma-induced pneumothorax after “bear-hug back crack” home remedy: attempted spinal manipulation by a layperson. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2007;107(9):411–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Mathews MK, et al. Spinal fluid leak after chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine. Arch Ophthalmol (Chicago, Ill: 1960). 2006;124(2):283.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  112. McMann LJ, et al. A case of cervical manipulation causing stroke & exploring its biomechanics. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30:S329.Google Scholar
  113. Mehalic T, Farhat SM. Vertebral artery injury from chiropractic manipulation of the neck. Surg Neurol. 1974;2(2):125–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. Merino-Ramírez MA, et al. Diaphragmatic paralysis following minor cervical trauma. Muscle Nerve. 2007;36(2):267–70.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  115. Mikkelsen R, et al. Endovascular treatment of basilar artery thrombosis secondary to bilateral vertebral artery dissection, with onset of symptoms following chiropractic neck manipulation - a case report. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;37:394.Google Scholar
  116. Mikkelsen R, et al. Endovascular treatment of basilar artery thrombosis secondary to bilateral vertebral artery dissection with symptom onset following cervical spine manipulation therapy. Am J Case Rep. 2015;16:868–71.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  117. Miller RG, Burton R. Stroke following chiropractic manipulation of the spine. J Am Med Assoc. 1974;229(2):189–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  118. Morandi X, et al. Caudal spinal cord ischemia after lumbar vertebral manipulation. Joint Bone Spine. 2004;71(4):334–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  119. Morelli N, et al. Intracranial hypotension syndrome following chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine. J Headache Pain. 2006;7(4):211–3.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  120. Morton A. Internal carotid artery dissection following chiropractic treatment in a pregnant woman with systemic lupus Erythematosus. Chiropr Man Therap. 2012;20Google Scholar
  121. Murphy DR. Herniated disc with radiculopathy following cervical manipulation: nonsurgical management. Spine J. 2006;6(4):459–63.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  122. Murthy JM, Naidu KV. Aneurysm of the cervical internal carotid artery following chiropractic manipulation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988;51(9):1237–8.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  123. Nadgir RN, et al. Simultaneous bilateral internal carotid and vertebral artery dissection following chiropractic manipulation: case report and review of the literature. Neuroradiology. 2003;45(5):311–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  124. Ng KP, Doube A. Stroke after neck manipulation in the post partum period. N Z Med J. 2001;114(1143):498.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. Oppenheim JS, Spitzer DE, Segal DH. Nonvascular complications following spinal manipulation. Spine J. 2005;5(6):660–6. discussion 666-7PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  126. Padua L, et al. Radiculomedullary complications of cervical spinal manipulation. Spinal Cord. 1996;34(8):488–92.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  127. Panagariya A, et al. Total unilateral medullary syndrome--a rare complication of chiropractic manipulation. J Assoc Physicians India. 2004;52:556.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Pandit A, Kalra S, Woodcock A. An unusual cause of bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis. Thorax. 1992;47(3):201.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  129. Parenti G, et al. Vertebral and carotid artery dissection following chiropractic cervical manipulation. Neurosurg Rev. 1999;22(2–3):127–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. Park H, et al. A case of cerebellar infarction caused by acute subclavian thrombus following minor trauma. Yonsei Med J. 2013;54(6):1538–41.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  131. Parke WW, Whalen JL. Phrenic paresis--a possible additional spinal cord dysfunction induced by neck manipulation in cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM): a report of two cases with anatomical and clinical considerations. Clin Anatom (New York, NY). 2001;14(3):173–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  132. Parkin PJ, Wallis WE, Wilson JL. Vertebral artery occlusion following manipulation of the neck. N Z Med J. 1978;88(625):441–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. Parwar BL, et al. Horner’s syndrome and dissection of the internal carotid artery after chiropractic manipulation of the neck. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131(4):523–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  134. Patel A, et al. Vertebral artery dissection from cervical spine manipulation: case reports and analysis. South Dakota Med. 2008;61(3):95. 97-9Google Scholar
  135. Peters M, et al. Dissection of the internal carotid artery after chiropractic manipulation of the neck. Neurology. 1995;45(12):2284–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  136. Phillips SJ, Maloney WJ, Gray J. Pure motor stroke due to vertebral artery dissection. Can J Neurol Sci. 1989;16(3):348–51.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  137. Plaugher G, Alcantara J, Doble RW Jr. Missed sacral fracture before chiropractic adjustment. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1996;19(7):480–3.Google Scholar
  138. Povlsen UJ, Kjaer L, Arlien-Søborg P. Locked-in syndrome following cervical manipulation. Acta Neurol Scand. 1987;76(6):486–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  139. Powell FC, Hanigan WC, Olivero WC. A risk/benefit analysis of spinal manipulation therapy for relief of lumbar or cervical pain. Neurosurgery. 1993;33(1):73–8. discussion 78-9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. Prasad S, et al. Intracranial hypotension following chiropractic spinal manipulation. Headache. 2006;46(9):1456–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  141. Raskind R, North CM. Vertebral artery injuries following chiropractic cervical spine manipulation--case reports. Angiology. 1990;41(6):445–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  142. Reuter U, et al. Vertebral artery dissections after chiropractic neck manipulation in Germany over three years. J Neurol. 2006;253(6):724–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  143. Richard J. Disk rupture with cauda equina syndrome after chiropractic adjustment. N Y State J Med. 1967;67(18):2496–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. Romero FR, Vieira RB, Freitas CCMD. Bilateral vertebral artery dissection after a chiropractic therapy session. Braz Neurosurg. 2017;36(1):43–6.Google Scholar
  145. Roque-Dang CM, Cole JL. Waiting to inhale: Electrodiagnosis of a left phrenic nerve palsy after chiropractic cervical manipulation: a case report. PM and R. 2011;3(10):S201.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  146. Ruelle A, Datti R, Pisani R. Thoracic epidural hematoma after spinal manipulation therapy. J Spinal Disord. 1999;12(6):534–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  147. Ruiz M, et al. Partial Horner syndrome as clinical manifestation of radiculopathy. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2016;21:S28.Google Scholar
  148. Saint-Elie DT, Ayyoub Z, Brandstater M. Stroke from cervical artery dissection after chiropractic manipulation: a case report. PM and R. 2012;4(10):S373–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  149. Schellhas KP, et al. Vertebrobasilar injuries following cervical manipulation. J Am Med Assoc. 1980;244(13):1450–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  150. Schmitz A, et al. Pathological cervical fracture after spinal manipulation in a pregnant patient. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2005;28(8):633–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  151. Schram DJ, Vosik W, Cantral D. Diaphragmatic paralysis following cervical chiropractic manipulation: case report and review. Chest. 2001;119(2):638–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  152. Sédat J, et al. Stroke after chiropractic manipulation as a result of extracranial postero-inferior cerebellar artery dissection. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2002;25(9):588–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  153. Segal, D.H., M.W. Lidov, and M.B. Camins. Cervical epidural hematoma after chiropractic manipulation in a healthy young woman: case report. Neurosurgery. 1996;39(5):1043-5.Google Scholar
  154. Shafrir Y, Kaufman BA. Quadriplegia after chiropractic manipulation in an infant with congenital torticollis caused by a spinal cord astrocytoma. J Pediatr. 1992;120(2 Pt 1):266–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  155. Sherman MR, Smialek JE, Zane WE. Pathogenesis of vertebral artery occlusion following cervical spine manipulation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1987;111(9):851–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. Shvartzman P, Abelson A. Complications of chiropractic treatment for back pain. Postgrad Med. 1988;83(7):57–8. 61PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  157. Simnad VI. Acute onset of painful ophthalmoplegia following chiropractic manipulation of the neck. Initial sign of intracranial aneurysm. West J Med. 1997;166(3):207–10.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  158. Sivakumaran P, Wilsher M. Diaphragmatic palsy and chiropractic manipulation. N Z Med J. 1995;108(1003):279–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. Solheim O, Jorgensen JV, Nygaard OP. Lumbar epidural hematoma after chiropractic manipulation for lower-back pain: case report. Neurosurgery. 2007;61(1):E170–1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  160. Sozio MS, Cave M. Boerhaave's syndrome following chiropractic manipulation. Am Surg. 2008;74(5):428–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. Sternbach G, Cohen M, Goldschmid D. Vertebral artery injury presenting with signs of middle cerebral artery occlusion. A case report. Angiology. 1995;46(9):843–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  162. Stevinson C, et al. Neurological complications of cervical spine manipulation. J R Soc Med. 2001;94(3):107–10.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  163. Strauss S, et al. Intracranial hypotension following chiropraxis. Eur Neurol. 2005;53(1):47–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  164. Struewer J, et al. Massive hematothorax after thoracic spinal manipulation for acute thoracolumbar pain. Orthop Rev. 2013;5(3):120–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  165. Suh S-I, et al. Intracranial hypotension induced by cervical spine chiropractic manipulation. Spine. 2005;30(12):E340–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  166. Sun J-M, Chang C-J, Hsieh C-T. Acute cervical spinal epidural hematoma: a rare complication of spinal manipulation in a healthy adolescent. Neurol Asia. 2016;21(3):287–90.Google Scholar
  167. Talluri SK, et al. Catastrophic complication of chiropractic manipulation: a report of quadriparesis. Am J Med. 2009;122(11):e3–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  168. Tseng S-H, et al. Cervical epidural hematoma after spinal manipulation therapy: case report. J Trauma. 2002;52(3):585–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  169. Tseng S-H, et al. Ruptured cervical disc after spinal manipulation therapy: report of two cases. Spine. 2002;27(3):E80–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  170. Vibert D, Rohr-Le Floch J, Gauthier G. Vertigo as manifestation of vertebral artery dissection after chiropractic neck manipulations. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1993;55(3):140–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  171. Wang C-C, et al. Acute paraplegia following chiropractic therapy. J Clin Neurosci. 2006;13(5):578–81.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  172. Wang JL, et al. Vertebral artery dissection complicated by cervical manipulation: a case report. Zhonghua yi xue za zhi = Chin Med J; Free China ed. 1995;55(6):496–500.Google Scholar
  173. Whedon JM, et al. Spinal epidural hematoma after spinal manipulative therapy in a patient undergoing anticoagulant therapy: a case report. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2006;29(7):582–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  174. Wilding LJ, et al. Extracranial internal carotid artery aneurysm presenting as symptomatic hypoglossal and glossopharyngeal nerve paralysis. J Laryngol Otol. 2004;118(2):150–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  175. Wilson PM, Greiner MV, Duma EM. Posterior rib fractures in a young infant who received chiropractic care. Pediatrics. 2012;130(5):e1359–62.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  176. Wood MJ, et al. Traumatic vertebral artery thrombosis. J Louisiana State Med Soc. 1971;123(12):413–4.Google Scholar
  177. Yang H-S, Oh Y-M, Eun J-P. Cervical Intradural disc Herniation causing progressive Quadriparesis after spinal manipulation therapy: a case report and literature review. Medicine. 2016;95(6):e2797.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  178. Yilmaz C, et al. Traumatic dissection of the extracranial vertebral artery. JBR-BTR. 2009;92(5):264.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. Yoshida S, Nakazawa K, Oda Y. Spontaneous vertebral arteriovenous fistula--case report. Neurol Med Chir. 2000;40(4):211–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  180. Young Y-H, Chen C-H. Acute vertigo following cervical manipulation. Laryngoscope. 2003;113(4):659–62.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  181. Zak SM, Carmody RF. Cerebellar infarction from chiropractic neck manipulation: case report and review of the literature. Arizona Med. 1984;41(5):333–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  182. Zimmerman AW, et al. Traumatic vertebrobasilar occlusive disease in childhood. Neurology. 1978;28(2):185–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  183. Ziv I, Rang M, Hoffman HJ. Paraplegia in osteogenesis imperfecta. A case report. The journal of bone and joint surgery. British Vol. 1983;65(2):184–5.Google Scholar
  184. Zupruk GM, Mehta Z. Brown-Séquard syndrome associated with posttraumatic cervical epidural hematoma: case report and review of the literature. Neurosurgery. 1989;25(2):278–80.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  185. Austin RT. Pathological vertebral fractures after spinal manipulation. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985;291(6502):1114–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  186. Beck J, et al. Intracranial hypotension after chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003;74(6):821–2.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  187. Bertino RE, et al. Chiropractic manipulation of the neck and cervical artery dissection. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(2):150–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  188. Cerimagic D, et al. Occlusion of vertebral artery, cerebellar infarction and obstructive hydrocephalus following cervical spine manipulation. Eur Neurol. 2007;58(4):248–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  189. Dabbert O, Freeman DG, Weis AJ. Spinal meningeal hematoma, warfarin therapy, and chiropractic adjustment. JAMA. 1970;214(11):2058.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  190. Davis C. Osteopathic manipulation resulting in damage to spinal cord. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292(6514):205.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  191. Destee A, et al. Intradural herniated cervical disc associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1989;52(9):1113.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  192. Garner LP, Case WF. Chiropractic manipulation and atherosclerotic emboli to the eye. Am Fam Physician. 1996;53(1):88. 90-1PubMedGoogle Scholar
  193. Jeret JS. More complications of spinal manipulation. Stroke. 2001;32(8):1936–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  194. Lanska DJ, et al. Thoracic disk herniation associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation. Arch Neurol. 1987;44(10):996–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  195. Malmivaara A, Pohjola R. Cauda equina syndrome caused by chiropraxis on a patient previously free of lumbar spine symptoms. Lancet (London, England). 1982;2(8305):986–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  196. Nakamura CT, et al. Vertebral artery dissection caused by chiropractic manipulation. J Vasc Surg. 1991;14(1):122–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  197. Neetu R, Chandra MS, Rashmi M. Cervical spinal epidural hematoma with acute Brown-Séquard presentation. Neurol India. 2006;54(1):107–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  198. Oware A, Herskovitz S, Berger AR. Long thoracic nerve palsy following cervical chiropractic manipulation. Muscle Nerve. 1995;18(11):1351.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  199. Preul C, et al. Bilateral vertebral artery dissection after chiropractic maneuver. Clin Neuroradiol. 2010;20(4):255–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  200. Ryan MD. Massive disc sequestration after spinal manipulation. Med J Aust. 1993;158(10):718.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  201. Siegel D, Neiders T. Vertebral artery dissection and pontine infarct after chiropractic manipulation. Am J Emerg Med. 2001;19(2):171–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  202. Stevenson JS, et al. Bilateral vertebral artery dissection in a patient with turner syndrome following manipulation of the cervical spine. N Z Med J. 2015;128(1424):75–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  203. Tamburrelli FC, Genitiempo M, Logroscino CA. Cauda equina syndrome and spine manipulation: case report and review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(Suppl 1):S128–31.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  204. Barrett AJ, Breen AC. Adverse effects of spinal manipulation. J R Soc Med. 2000;93(5):258–9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  205. Boyle E, et al. Examining vertebrobasilar artery stroke in two Canadian provinces. Spine. 2008;33(4 Suppl):S170–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  206. Boyle E, et al. Examining Vertebrobasilar artery stroke in two Canadian provinces. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2009;32(2 SUPPL):S194–200.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  207. Cagnie B, et al. How common are side effects of spinal manipulation and can these side effects be predicted? Man Ther. 2004;9(3):151–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  208. Cai X, et al. Case misclassification in studies of spinal manipulation and arterial dissection. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;23(8):2031–5.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  209. Cassidy JD, et al. Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: results of a population-based case-control and case-crossover study. Spine. 2008;33(4 Suppl):S176–83.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  210. Cassidy JD, et al. Risk of Vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care. Results of a population-based case-control and case-crossover study. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2009;32(2 SUPPL):S201–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  211. Cassidy JD, et al. Risk of carotid stroke after chiropractic care: a population-based case-crossover study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017;26(4):842–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  212. Dvorák J, et al. Frequency of complications of manipulation of the spine. A survey among the members of the Swiss medical Society of Manual Medicine. Eur Spine J. 1993;2(3):136–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  213. Dziewas R, et al. Cervical artery dissection--clinical features, risk factors, therapy and outcome in 126 patients. J Neurol. 2003;250(10):1179–84.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  214. Engelter ST, et al. Cervical artery dissection: trauma and other potential mechanical trigger events. Neurology. 2013;80(21):1950–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  215. Eriksen K, Rochester RP, Hurwitz EL. Symptomatic reactions, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction associated with upper cervical chiropractic care: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:219.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  216. Haneline MT, Lewkovich GN. An analysis of the etiology of cervical artery dissections: 1994 to 2003. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2005;28(8):617–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  217. Hashemi S, Monfared A. Trends in vertebral artery dissection as a result of chiropractic cervical manipulation. J Neurol Surg Part B. 2014;75Google Scholar
  218. Hayes NM, Bezilla TA. Incidence of iatrogenesis associated with osteopathic manipulative treatment of pediatric patients. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2006;106(10):605–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  219. Klougart N, Leboeuf-Yde C, Rasmussen LR. Safety in chiropractic practice. Part II: treatment to the upper neck and the rate of cerebrovascular incidents. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1996;19(9):563–9.Google Scholar
  220. Klougart N, Leboeuf-Yde C, Rasmussen LR. Safety in chiropractic practice, part I; the occurrence of cerebrovascular accidents after manipulation to the neck in Denmark from 1978-1988. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1996;19(6):371–7.Google Scholar
  221. Kosloff, T.M., et al., Chiropractic care and the risk of vertebrobasilar stroke: results of a case-control study in U.S. commercial and Medicare advantage populations. Chiropr Man Therap. 2015;23(1).Google Scholar
  222. Leboeuf-Yde C, et al. Side effects of chiropractic treatment: a prospective study. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1997;20(8):511–5.Google Scholar
  223. Michaeli A. Reported occurrence and nature of complications following manipulative physiotherapy in South Africa. Aust J Physiother. 1993;39(4):309–15.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  224. Miller JE, Benfield K. Adverse effects of spinal manipulative therapy in children younger than 3 years: a retrospective study in a chiropractic teaching clinic. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2008;31(6):419–23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  225. Rajendran D, et al. Reporting patterns and predictors of common minor adverse events following osteopathic treatment: lessons learned from a prospective, patient-administered questionnaire feasibility study in a UK teaching clinic. Eur J Integrat Med. 2015;7(6):634–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  226. Rothwell DM, Bondy SJ, Williams JI. Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case-control study. Stroke. 2001;32(5):1054–60.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  227. Rubinstein SM, et al. Benign adverse events following chiropractic care for neck pain are associated with worse short-term outcomes but not worse outcomes at three months. Spine. 2008;33(25):E950–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  228. Rubinstein SM, et al. The benefits outweigh the risks for patients undergoing chiropractic care for neck pain: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2007;30(6):408–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  229. Rubinstein SM, et al. Predictors of adverse events following chiropractic care for patients with neck pain. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2008;31(2):94–103.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  230. Senstad O, Leboeuf-Yde C, Borchgrevink C. Predictors of side effects to spinal manipulative therapy. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1996;19(7):441–5.Google Scholar
  231. Senstad O, Leboeuf-Yde C, Borchgrevink C. Frequency and characteristics of side effects of spinal manipulative therapy. Spine. 1997;22(4):435–40. discussion 440-1PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  232. Senstad O, Leboeuf-Yde C, Borchgrevink CF. Side-effects of chiropractic spinal manipulation: types frequency, discomfort and course. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1996;14(1):50–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  233. Smith WS, et al. Spinal manipulative therapy is an independent risk factor for vertebral artery dissection. Neurology. 2003;60(9):1424–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  234. Thiel HW, et al. Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey. Spine. 2007;32(21):2375–8. discussion 2379PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  235. Whedon JM, et al. Risk of traumatic injury associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation in Medicare part B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years. Spine. 2015;40(4):264–70.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  236. Whedon JM, et al. Risk of stroke after chiropractic spinal manipulation in medicare B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2015;38(2):93–101.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  237. Woggon AJ, Woggon DA. Patient-reported side effects immediately after chiropractic scoliosis treatment: a cross-sectional survey utilizing a practice-based research network. Scoliosis. 2015;10(1)Google Scholar
  238. Lee KP, et al. Neurologic complications following chiropractic manipulation: a survey of California neurologists. Neurology. 1995;45(6):1213–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  239. Gutmann G. Verletzungen der arteria vertebralis durch manuelle therapic. Man Med. 1983;21:2–14.Google Scholar
  240. Rivett DA, Milburn P. Complications arising from spinal manipulative therapy in New Zealand. Physiotherapy. 1997;83(12):626–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  241. Sweeney A, Doody C. Manual therapy for the cervical spine and reported adverse effects: a survey of Irish manipulative physiotherapists. Man Ther. 2010;15(1):32–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  242. Chaibi A, et al. Adverse events in a chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial for migraineurs. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017;29:66–71.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  243. Hurwitz EL, et al. Adverse reactions to chiropractic treatment and their effects on satisfaction and clinical outcomes among patients enrolled in the UCLA neck pain study. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2004;27(1):16–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  244. Hurwitz EL, et al. Frequency and clinical predictors of adverse reactions to chiropractic care in the UCLA neck pain study. Spine. 2005;30(13):1477–84.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  245. Maiers M, et al. Adverse events among seniors receiving spinal manipulation and exercise in a randomized clinical trial. Man Ther. 2015;20(2):335–41.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  246. Paanalahti K, et al. Adverse events after manual therapy among patients seeking care for neck and/or back pain: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:77.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  247. Walker BF, et al. Outcomes of usual chiropractic. The OUCH randomized controlled trial of adverse events. Spine. 2013;38(20):1723–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  248. Assendelft WJJ, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Complications of spinal manipulation: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Fam Pract. 1996;42(5):475–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  249. Carlesso LC, et al. Adverse events associated with the use of cervical manipulation and mobilization for the treatment of neck pain in adults: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2010;15(5):434–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  250. Cherkin DC, et al. A review of the evidence for the effectiveness, safety, and cost of acupuncture, massage therapy, and spinal manipulation for back pain. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(11):898–906.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  251. Church EW, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of chiropractic care and cervical artery dissection: no evidence for causation. Cureus. 2016;8(2):e498.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  252. Coulter ID. Efficacy and risks of chiropractic manipulation: what does the evidence suggest? Integrat Med. 1998;1(2):61–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  253. Dabbs V, Lauretti WJ. A risk assessment of cervical manipulation vs. NSAIDS for the treatment of neck pain. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1995;18(8):530–6.Google Scholar
  254. Di Fabio RP. Manipulation of the cervical spine: risks and benefits. Phys Ther. 1999;79(1):50–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  255. Ernst E. The use, efficacy, safety and costs of complementary/alternative therapies for low back pain. Eur J Physic Med Rehab. 1998;8(2):53–7.Google Scholar
  256. Ernst E. Prospective investigations into the safety of spinal manipulation. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2001;21(3):238–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  257. Ernst E. Adverse effects of unconventional therapies in the elderly: a systematic review of the recent literature. J Am Aging Assoc. 2002;25(1):11–20.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  258. Ernst E. Serious adverse effects of unconventional therapies for children and adolescents: a systematic review of recent evidence. Eur J Pediatr. 2003;162(2):72–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  259. Ernst E. Ophthalmological adverse effects of (chiropractic) upper spinal manipulation: evidence from recent case reports. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83(5):581–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  260. Ernst E. Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2007;100(7):330–8.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  261. Ernst E. Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64(8):1162–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  262. Furlan AD, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of selected complementary and alternative medicine for neck and low-back pain. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012;2012Google Scholar
  263. Gouveia LO, Castanho P, Ferreira JJ. Safety of chiropractic interventions: a systematic review. Spine. 2009;34(11):E405–13.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  264. Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M. Risk factors and precipitating neck movements causing vertebrobasilar artery dissection after cervical trauma and spinal manipulation. Spine. 1999;24(8):785–94.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  265. Haynes MJ, et al. Assessing the risk of stroke from neck manipulation: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract. 2012;66(10):940–7.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  266. Hebert JJ, et al. Serious adverse events and spinal manipulative therapy of the low back region: a systematic review of cases. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2015;38(9):677–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  267. Kranenburg HA, et al. Adverse events associated with the use of cervical spine manipulation or mobilization and patient characteristics: a systematic review. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017;28:32–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  268. Kranenburg R, et al. Adverse events associated with the use of cervical manipulation or mobilization and patient characteristics: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2016;25:e125–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  269. Miley ML, et al. Does cervical manipulative therapy cause vertebral artery dissection and stroke? Neurologist. 2008;14(1):66–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  270. Nielsen SM, et al. The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews. System Rev. 2017;6(1)Google Scholar
  271. Paige NM, et al. Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy with Clinical Benefit and Harm for acute low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2017;317(14):1451–60.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  272. Puentedura EJ, et al. Safety of cervical spine manipulation: are adverse events preventable and are manipulations being performed appropriately? A review of 134 case reports. J Man Manipulat Ther. 2012;20(2):66–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  273. Puentedura EJ, O’Grady WH. Safety of thrust joint manipulation in the thoracic spine: a systematic review. J Man Manipulat Ther. 2015;23(3):154–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  274. Shin B-C, et al. Serious adverse events after spinal manipulation: a systematic review of the Korean literature. Focus Altern Complement Ther. 2010;15(3):198–201.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  275. Snelling NJ. Spinal manipulation in patients with disc herniation: a critical review of risk and benefit. Int J Osteopath Med. 2006;9(3):77–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  276. Stevinson C, Ernst E. Risks associated with spinal manipulation. Am J Med. 2002;112(7):566–71.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  277. Stuber KJ, Wynd S, Weis CA. Adverse events from spinal manipulation in the pregnant and postpartum periods: a critical review of the literature. Chiropr Man Therap. 2012;20Google Scholar
  278. Tuchin P. A replication of the study ‘adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review’. Chiropr Man Therap. 2012;20Google Scholar
  279. Vohra S, et al. Adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2007;119(1):e275–83.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  280. Wynd S, et al. The quality of reports on cervical arterial dissection following cervical spinal manipulation. PLoS One. 2013;8(3)Google Scholar
  281. Gross AR, et al. Clinical practice guideline on the use of manipulation or mobilization in the treatment of adults with mechanical neck disorders. Man Ther. 2002;7(4):193–205.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  282. Hawk C, et al. Best practices for chiropractic Care for Older Adults: a systematic review and consensus update. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2017;40(4):217–29.Google Scholar
  283. Hawk C, et al. Best practices for chiropractic Care of Children: a consensus update. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2016;39(3):158–68.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  284. Vogel, S., et al., Clinical Risk Osteopathy and Management Scientific Report. 2013, The Research Centre, The British School of Osteopathy in collaboration with Barts and the London, Warwick Medical School, Royal Holloway: http://www.osteopathy.org.uk/news-and-resources/document-library/research-and-surveys/the-croam-study-february-2013/.
  285. Walker BF, et al. Outcomes of usual chiropractic, harm & efficacy, the ouch study: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2011;12Google Scholar
  286. Silverman SL. From randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Am J Med. 2009;122(2):114–20.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  287. Yang W, et al. Observational studies: going beyond the boundaries of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;88(Suppl 1):S3–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  288. Lee T-H, et al. Acute thoracic epidural hematoma following spinal manipulative therapy: case report and review of the literature. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2011;113(7):575–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  289. Biller J, et al. Cervical arterial dissections and association with cervical manipulative therapy: a statement for healthcare professionals from the american heart association/american stroke association. Stroke. 2014;45(10):3155–74.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  290. Kerry R, Taylor AJ. Cervical arterial dysfunction: knowledge and reasoning for manual physical therapists. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39(5):378–87.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  291. Humphreys BK. Possible adverse events in children treated by manual therapy: a review. Chiropr Osteopat. 2010;18Google Scholar
  292. Langworthy JM, le Fleming C. Consent or submission? The practice of consent within UK chiropractic. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2005;28(1):15–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  293. Langworthy JM, Cambron J. Consent: its practices and implications in United kingdom and United States chiropractic practice. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2007;30(6):419–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  294. Langworthy JM, Forrest L. Withdrawal rates as a consequence of disclosure of risk associated with manipulation of the cervical spine. Chiropr Osteopat. 2010;18:27.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  295. Winterbottom M, et al. Informed consent for chiropractic care: comparing patients' perceptions to the legal perspective. Man Ther. 2015;20(3):463–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  296. Finch RP, et al. Development of CPiRLS: the future of patient safety incident reporting and learning in the UK [abstract]. In: The world Federation of Chiropractic Congress. Montreal; 2009.Google Scholar
  297. Brozek JL, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies. Allergy. 2009;64(8):1109–16.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  298. Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407–15.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement