Hebert et al 2013 Compehensive review of serious adverse effects of SMT or CMT

In answer to Andrew Schafer‘s question, “So does this study give the stats on how many of the “providers” were licensed chiropractors? How many of them were PT’s DO’s MD’s?” Also addressing Sarah Graef‘s question, “[T]he abstract states ‘Adverse events consisted of cauda equina syndrome (29 cases, 38% of total)’, how is that possible?”

I extracted the following numbers from the full-text copy of the article:

DC ? DO Other Total
CES 15 10 2 2 29
Herniation 8 14 0 1 23
Fracture 8 3 1 1 13
Other 8 0 0 4 12
Totals 39 27 3 8 77

From this table, I created the following three charts:
Hebert et al 2013-Manipulation Provider by Adverse Outcome Hebert et al 2013-Distribution of Adverse Outcomes, All Providers Hebert et al 2013-Distribution of Provider Types, All OutcomesAs expected, the majority of providers were DC’s, because chiropractic physicians perform over 95% of all SMTs annually.

Providers listed as “Other” include one (1) of each of the following:

  • Napropath: Adverse outcome=CES
  • “Doctor”: Adverse outcome=Herniation
  • “Lay manipulator”: Adverse outcome=Fracture
  • “Traditional Healer”: Adverse outcome=Other
  • Physiotherapist: Adverse outcome=Other
  • Physician: Adverse outcome=Other
  • Chinese Kong Fu practictioner: Adverse outcome=Other
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s