ReviewJournal of clinical imaging science2024
An investigation into the chiropractic practice and communication of routine, repetitive radiographic imaging for the location of postural misalignments.
Review in Journal of clinical imaging science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability of the Biomechanical Assessment of the Sagittal Thoracic Spine on Radiographs Used in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Literature Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Reliability of Biomechanical Mensuration Methods of the Sagittal Cervical Spine in Radiography Used in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Machine learning models for predicting treatment outcomes in chronic non-specific back pain patients undergoing lumbar extension traction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Long-term stability of reducing cervical kyphosis via Chiropractic BiophysicsJournal of physical therapy science · 2026Article
- Another year of Service to the Global Radiology Community.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2025Article
- The Rationale and Safety of Routine Imaging in Rehabilitative Spine Care: Delayed Radiographs for Patients Presenting With Spine Disorders is Debatable.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many chiropractors use radiological imaging, particularly X-rays, to locate and diagnose the cause of their patients' pain. However, this approach is fundamentally flawed because X-rays provide anatomical information but not functional insights. Pain, tissue damage, and injury do not always correlate directly with X-ray appearances. Given the high incidence of abnormalities found in X-rays of asymptomatic patients, the diagnostic validity of X-rays can be questioned, especially when used in isolation of the patient's history and/or a proper clinical assessment. One may posit that their application promotes overdiagnosis, and unvalidated treatment of X-ray findings (such as changes in postural curvature), which may mislead patients into believing these changes are directly responsible for their pain. A substantial amount of research has shown that there is no association between pain and reversed cervical curves. X-ray accuracy can vary due to several factors, including patient positioning, physical and morphological changes, interreliability among doctors, and other influences such as stress, pain, and emotional state. Over the past two decades, medical boards and health associations worldwide have made significant efforts to communicate better when imaging is necessary, focusing on reducing radiographic imaging. This review describes concerns about the frequent, almost routine use of spinal X-rays in primary care for spine-related pain in the absence of red-flag clinical signs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.