A Gentle Reminder for the BCA

May 25, 2009 at 6:34 pm (Alternative Medicine, Chiropractic) (BCA, British Chiropractic Association, Chiropractic, Chiropractic Research)

Despite my email of 19th May, the BCA research page remains unchanged. (Nor have I had a reply to my original email.) There are still no citations of systematic reviews of the therapy and the only peer-reviewed evidence published in reputable journals that is cited are a handful of trials picked out by the BCA from the many that are available. The citation of the RCGP guidelines remains. I’ve emailed them again to ask if they are standing by their research page, the evidence cited, the failure to cite systematic reviews, and the page’s claim that “Research Supports Chiropractic”. The email is republished below.

Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

I note that your research page is still missing any mention of systematic reviews of chiropractic and that the only peer-reviewed evidence published in reputable journals that is cited seems to be a few individual trials that you have picked out from the many that are available. The reference to the withdrawn 1999 RCGP guidelines remains on your research page, which I must say surprised me a little. If the college considered that the guidelines were out of date, I wonder why you appear to disagree with the RCGP and continue to cite these withdrawn guidelines.

I would like to ask whether your page will be updated in the near future in order to better reflect the totality of evidence for chiropractic. I would also be interested to learn why no systematic reviews are listed on your page? I would have thought that this review in particular would be relevant: Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain (it’s the one I cited in my original email to you – the review of spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain). The authors conclusions were fascinating: “There is no evidence that spinal manipulative therapy is superior to other standard treatments for patients with acute or chronic low-back pain”. You may also enjoy the plain language summary: “This review of 39 trials found that spinal manipulation was more effective in reducing pain and improving the ability to perform everyday activities than sham (fake) therapy and therapies already known to be unhelpful. However, it was no more or less effective than medication for pain, physical therapy, exercises, back school or the care given by a general practitioner.”

By the way, I would also like to ask if it is your contention that “scientific research as a whole supports chiropractic” or that “the research we cite on our page supports chiropractic” as the heading of your page (“Research Supports Chiropractic”) seems to me to be a little ambiguous in this respect.

I appreciate that it is only six days since my email and you have perhaps been too busy to update your webpage or respond to my original message, but I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the shortcomings of your research page in order that you might make the necessary improvements. Or perhaps you stand by your research page, the evidence that is cited, the failure to cite systematic reviews, and the page’s claim that “Research Supports Chiropractic”?

Regards,

James.

If and when I receive a response I will let you know. I’m also expecting a response from Bassett Chiropractic to the second email I sent to them three days ago.

More

Helping the BCA; Bassett Chiropractic follow-up; A roundup of reports on the Simon Singh case.