10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , International Chiropractors Association Rapid Response Research Review Subcommittee
      Dose-Response
      SAGE Publications
      radiophobia, X-ray, radiograph, chiropractic, clinical utility, guidelines

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

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

          Related collections

          Most cited references461

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of bracing in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.

          The role of bracing in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis who are at risk for curve progression and eventual surgery is controversial. We conducted a multicenter study that included patients with typical indications for bracing due to their age, skeletal immaturity, and degree of scoliosis. Both a randomized cohort and a preference cohort were enrolled. Of 242 patients included in the analysis, 116 were randomly assigned to bracing or observation, and 126 chose between bracing and observation. Patients in the bracing group were instructed to wear the brace at least 18 hours per day. The primary outcomes were curve progression to 50 degrees or more (treatment failure) and skeletal maturity without this degree of curve progression (treatment success). The trial was stopped early owing to the efficacy of bracing. In an analysis that included both the randomized and preference cohorts, the rate of treatment success was 72% after bracing, as compared with 48% after observation (propensity-score-adjusted odds ratio for treatment success, 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 3.46). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of treatment success was 75% among patients randomly assigned to bracing, as compared with 42% among those randomly assigned to observation (odds ratio, 4.11; 95% CI, 1.85 to 9.16). There was a significant positive association between hours of brace wear and rate of treatment success (P<0.001). Bracing significantly decreased the progression of high-risk curves to the threshold for surgery in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The benefit increased with longer hours of brace wear. (Funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and others; BRAIST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00448448.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            A scoping review of rapid review methods

            Background Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated, compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. Results We included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997 and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers (one was included in two categories). The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12 months, predominantly in Europe (58 %) and North America (20 %). The included studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews included limiting the literature search to published literature (24 %) or one database (2 %), limiting inclusion criteria by date (68 %) or language (49 %), having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies (6 %), having one person abstract data and another verify (23 %), not conducting risk of bias/quality appraisal (7 %) or having only one reviewer conduct the quality appraisal (7 %), and presenting results as a narrative summary (78 %). Four case studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and systematic reviews were congruent. Conclusions Numerous rapid review approaches were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach

              Background Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review 'methods', and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program. Methods The KTA research program is a two-year project designed to develop and assess the impact of a regional knowledge infrastructure that supports evidence-informed decision making by regional managers and stakeholders. As part of this program, we have developed evidence summaries - our form of rapid review - which have come to be a flagship component of this project. Our eight-step approach for producing evidence summaries has been developed iteratively, based on evidence (where available), experience and knowledge user feedback. The aim of our evidence summary approach is to deliver quality evidence that is both timely and user-friendly. Results From November 2009 to March 2011 we have produced 11 evidence summaries on a diverse range of questions identified by our knowledge users. Topic areas have included questions of clinical effectiveness to questions on health systems and/or health services. Knowledge users have reported evidence summaries to be of high value in informing their decisions and initiatives. We continue to experiment with incorporating more of the established methods of systematic reviews, while maintaining our capacity to deliver a final product in a timely manner. Conclusions The evolution of the KTA rapid review evidence summaries has been a positive one. We have developed an approach that appears to be addressing a need by knowledge users for timely, user-friendly, and trustworthy evidence and have transparently reported these methods here for the wider rapid review and scientific community.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Dose Response
                Dose Response
                spdos
                DOS
                Dose-Response
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                1559-3258
                16 August 2021
                Jul-Sep 2021
                : 19
                : 3
                : 15593258211033142
                Affiliations
                [1 ]universityPrivate Practice; , Newmarket, ON, Canada
                [2 ]universityPrivate Practice; , Boise, ID, USA
                [3 ]universityCBP NonProfit, Inc; , Eagle, ID, USA
                [4 ]universityPrivate Practice; , Green Brook, NJ, USA
                [5 ]universityPrivate Practice; , Laurel, MD, USA
                Author notes
                [*]Paul A. Oakley, Private Practice, 11A-1100 Gorham Street, Newmarket, ON L3Y 8Y8, Canada. Email: docoakley.icc@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3117-7330
                Article
                10.1177_15593258211033142
                10.1177/15593258211033142
                8375354
                34421439
                eb414f3e-b342-4fa4-8a83-0106691aa778
                © The Author(s) 2021

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 20 April 2021
                : 17 June 2021
                : 22 June 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: International Chiropractor’s Association;
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                July-September 2021
                ts10

                radiophobia,x-ray,radiograph,chiropractic,clinical utility,guidelines

                Comments

                Comment on this article