I'M WRITING in response to the Nov. 12 Discoveries column, which discussed a recent study from The Lancet that investigated the effectiveness of spinal manipulation ("Some chiropractic care and drugs don't speed recovery," Health/Science).
I want to clarify that the study looked at spinal manipulative therapy carried out by 15 physiotherapists - not chiropractors -in Australia, so the use of the term "chiropractic care" here is inaccurate. No direct comparison can be made from the results of this study and the treatment offered by doctors of chiropractic in the United States.
Practice guidelines published in the Oct. 2 Annals of Internal Medicine stress a conservative approach to treating low-back pain, and recommend spinal manipulation as one treatment with proven benefits.
In addition, chiropractic manipulation is safer than many of the more traditional courses of care. This year, the American Heart Association advised that doctors treating people for chronic pain should avoid using all medications - at least at first - and instead rely on non-medicinal treatment options, which include chiropractic care.
The Lancet study that you cite is certainly not the most definitive on spinal manipulation, and should not be characterized as a study on chiropractic care.
GLENN MANCEAUX
President
American Chiropractic Association
Arlington, Va.
