The Spine Journal
Volume 10, Issue 6 , Pages 512-513 , June 2010

Clinical practice guidelines versus systematic reviews; which serve as the best basis for evidence-based spine medicine?

  • Michael D. Freeman, PhD, MPH, DC

      Affiliations

    • Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine, Portland, OR 97239, USA
    • Institute of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. 1234 SW 18th Ave., Suite 102, Portland, OR 97205, USA. Tel.: (971) 255-1008; fax: (971) 255-1046.

Received 9 March 2010 ,Accepted 7 April 2010.

References 

  1. Dagenais S, Tricco AC, Haldeman S. Synthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines. Spine J. 2010;10:514–529
  2. Ernst E, Canter PH. A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:192–196
  3. Bronfort G, Haas M, Moher D, et al. Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted. Chiropr Osteopat. 2006;14:14
  4. Ernst E. Chiropractic spinal manipulation for infant colic: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Int J Clin Pract. 2009;63:1351–1353
  5. Ernst E. Chiropractic treatment for fibromyalgia: a systematic review. Clin Rheumatol. 2009;28:1175–1178
  6. Ernst E. UK chiropractic: regulated but unruly. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14:186–187
  7. Ernst E. Chiropractic: a critical evaluation. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008;35:544–562

 FDA device/drug status: not applicable.

 Author disclosures: none.

PII: S1529-9430(10)00302-5

doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.04.006

The Spine Journal
Volume 10, Issue 6 , Pages 512-513 , June 2010

Article Tools