Talk:Veterinary chiropractic

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AbbeyZastrow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, it's Chiropractic

The arguments pro are entertaining, but it's still the continued endeavors of a "made-up" medical discipline. Conventional (truthful, evidence based, non-holistic) medicine was successfully sued by a group of chiropractors, but it didn't give their cause more credibility. It's simply allowed "real" doctors to write a referral for a glorified massage or muscle stretching. It's not a permit for another "credibility enhancing" x-ray view to lead a victim on to a lifetime of adjustments for a completely made up affliction or "subluxation." An MD should beware of creating a Pied Piperesque following, certain to be included in said chiro's advertising material for the rest of their business career.

I've had two friends who were chiro's. From hanging out with me, I have, hopefully, constrained their activities and caused them to be more critical of their convention going associates to admire practice building advertising and patient recruitment and retention devices. Lobby cards are used to sucker in other ailments and "get them while they're young." I really get mad at pregnancy well checks through chiro's...STAY AWAY from my patients.

I truly appreciate DVMt, BullRanfifeer, and Puhlaa's additions. We are all self-critiqued here, and sticking to the topic at hand has been well-done. Hell, it's chiropractic. Have fun with it. But when you see something legitimately wrong with someone, get some real help from a nurse/doctor/veterinarian, ambulance driver, or paramedic. Look outside the box. You're not saving lives by cracking bones. You're collecting fees for cracking bones.

AND!!!...don't touch my animals. They are devoid of the reasoning required to make an intelligent choice. This is so sad, in the name of a dollar.

I just have a major, major problem with this entire chiropractic fraud in and of itself. "Doctor." My gawd...it's fraud.

Blondesareeasy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

While continuing to read this, for entertainment purposes only...I just wonder how the "power" of the human chiropractor magically transfers to some innate ability to adjust a horses spine? What next? Elephant? Whale? We've read tales of chiropractors "adjusting" infant spines. How much do you move them? And do you know how much you've moved a 300 pound adult males spine without an audible click or pop? And do your fingers palpate through the muscle mass of a Clydesdale with adequate pinpoint precision? Please understand...this is just horse___. Blondesareeasy (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent Changes

DVMt, again there are too many changes for another editor (like me) to sift-through. It looks like your first change, the addition of a needed source to the history section, is a good contribution. However, it is mixed up now with all the reverts/edits/etc. I would suggest that you revert your own reversion of BullRangifer, and discuss each change here. The first, the addition of a source, will likely be unchallenged as long as there are no higher quality sources that say something contradictory. It looks like you have value to add here, you just have to 'conform' a bit to the wikipedia culture. If not, you are likely to get banned from contributing, which would be unfortunate, as there are not enough editors willing to struggle through the discussion required to make good and significant changes to these controversial articles. Puhlaa (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I was not under the impression that my edits were controversial as they had been in place for well over a week and the article itself is not tagged as controversial or NPOV. I'm going to keep the article as if for now and specific challenges to the added content can be discussed here at which time we can remove or rewrite sections. I am aware of 3RR and will not go down that route, but reversions without any discussion, especially after they have been there for a week is not good practice and according to my knowledge can result in disciplinary measures if need be. I strive to be a good contributor and will work with editors to ensure that our mutual goal of improving wikipedia is met. DVMt (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

DVMt, One week with no reversion of your edits is not the same as consensus for your edits. We all have real lives, and this is a hobby, sometimes editors only check in once a week or less. Moreover, it may not be your edits that are controversial, but the topic itself is controversial. That said, I made a point of individually examining each of your edits here in this article (something that would be easier in future with prior discussion for each item on the talk page). I see nothing wrong with your edits here, the sources you added are good quality and your text accuarately summarizes those sources IMO. I personally am satisfied with your edits here; I guess we will see what other editors think. Puhlaa (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Puhlaa, thank you for your feedback. I understand we are all busy IRL, and our contributions here are voluntary. That being said, erasing a recent contribution of an editor without specifically explaining the problem is a big reason why new editors leave Wikipedia. That being said, if I make additions to "controversial" articles I will also go on the talk page and explain my edits so that other editors can gain a better understanding of the content of the edit. I suspected that my edits and sources were done in a NPOV manner and that the edits reflected the material accurately. Your opinion on my edits at vertebral subluxation would also be appreciated. DVMt (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made some modifications [1]. First, I moved the only secondary source in the paragraph to the beginning, as it holds the most weight. I then re-worded the text describing the primary studies, as the way it was written was too 'conclusive' for primary sources. The results of one primary study can suggest trends or outcomes, but can conclude nothing until it is replicated independently. Anyways, I am ok with including the primary sources, as MEDRS does not 'forbid' it, and there is a paucity of systematic reviews on the topic atm, so I think it is informitive and the best available data so far. I have just softened the laguage. Lastly, I am now going to look into the one source that you removed DVMt, if it is a good source then I am going to re-insert it.Puhlaa (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback once again, it has been constructive and I understand the logic behind using secondary sources at the beginning of paragraphs and its relative value in weight. I see your point regarding primary studies and how editors might jump to conclusions based on preliminary evidence. I would think that wordings such as "preliminary evidence" or "emergent" or some descriptive language in that manner would be a consistent way of dealing with this issue as medical jargon such "a primary study has suggested" doesn't really translate well the common reader. Does WPMEDRS follow Sackett's levels of evidence (http://www.eboncall.org/content/levels.html)? This would be a nice easy way to classify sources when discussing the weight it deserves in articles. Your guidance is much appreciated! DVMt (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I still see a problem with recentism here. By using primary sources which are not directly mentioned in the secondary sources, we are violating the spirit of no original research. Yes, primary sources are occasionally allowed, but not very often and they should already be mentioned in secondary sources, and for MEDRS matters they should be literature reviews, not single studies. Wikipedia is not supposed to be the first place that mentions a study. That makes Wikipedia the publisher of OR and the secondary source, and that's not okay at all. We're not supposed to do that. If a primary study is mentioned in a secondary MEDRS, then we can ALSO include the primary study. Until then recentism should be avoided, since the large majority of primary studies often don't pan out well in the future anyway. Only those that are good enough and accurate enough to stand the test of time should be mentioned here, and whether they pass is proven by whether they are mentioned in secondary sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As per MEDRS, as I understand it, can use primary sources when there are no available secondary or tertiary sources. Puhlaa, in my opinion, explained this very well in his post above. The sources that were recently added are in fact from a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal. Also, WP isn't the first place that mentions a study, it's the original journal that it was published in. So long that no widespread conclusions are drawn and the primary source and has appropriate relative weight. There is no OR research here and the study that was added is nothing that I personally published nor did I draw "original" conclusions or tried to link it to another study to come up a different conclusion or hypothesis that was not already stated in the original source. I disagree with your interpretation BullRangife, so does Puhlaa who made a reasonable change in the article to reflect this matter. DVMt (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DVMt here. I feel that I have chewed down DVMt's original edits sufficiently from their original form to allow their inclusions, and I feel they improve the article. BullRangifer, you are making too little of primary sources IMO; primary sources are allowed provided they dont contradict available secondary sources. Of the two primary sources included here, one represent a topic where no published secondary source exists (cats and dog; the closest is a self-published statement by the vet asssociation that says not enough evidence exists yet to make recommendations, but there is no systematic review that describes what research actually does exist); the other primary source is with horses and biomechanics (also not yet reviewed), and the results are strongly qualified and put in context (ie: "dont know if the observed changes are beneficial").

The sources and edits all comply with wikipedia policy:

1. Secondary sources are given the most weight
2. The specific topic of one of the primary studies have not been systematically reviewed yet (cats and dogs)
3. The results of primary sources are put in a context that allows readers to understand their limited value
4. No primary sources are included that contradict any of the secondary sources

There is very little research done on this topic and a lack of available secondary sources, thus the primary sources become the best available information to date. The idea here is to inform readers with the best available info. I feel that we have now done so, while maintaining the appropriate context for each of the different levels of evidence presented. Puhlaa (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I admire your attempt at making this as NPOV as possible, and the weight issue is better now.

I've looked at the three research sources and could grudgingly be forced to accept one of them, while the other two are so inconclusive as to be embarrassing to even mention here. We don't usually include inconclusive studies, even in the absence of any other research on the subject (there are no secondary sources for them to contradict!). We normally wait until there are more conclusive results. To do otherwise violates the spirit of MEDRS and OR.

If you insist on including them, I won't fight it, but it is only another example of the tendency we've always fought against here, and that is that alternative medicine, fringe, and chiropractic subjects tend to promote and depend on poor quality research and sources. This is just another example of dumbing down an article. Too bad. As a very experienced manual therapist I would hide my head in shame over this, but then I'm not a DC.

I think I'll drop a note over where the experts on MEDRS lurk and see if we can get some third opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The article does appear to me to be too willing to accept unsubstantiated claims that promote the field, and far too reluctant to give adequate weight to sources that are critical. I'll give a couple of examples to try to illustrate what I mean:

The lead states "Proposed benefits of animal chiropractic include, enhanced performance, function and quality of life" - where does that come from? I don't see it in the body of the article and I can't see who was doing the proposing. Is it such a well-supported fact that it belongs in the lead? If so, what's the source?

The Efficacy section states:

• "A recent review investigated the role of manual therapies in equine pain management and found limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in reducing pain and muscle hypertonicity in horses. The authors concluded that the efficacy of specific equine manual therapy techniques is unknown."{ref Haussler (2010)}

This is sourced to Haussler (2010), PMID 21056301. Is that a secondary source? It certainly looks like one, as it "explores the scientific literature for evidence of efficacy, safety, ..." and per WP:MEDRS it needs to be a secondary source to support its conclusions on efficacy. So the real question is, why is it attributed as if it were disputed by another reliable source? Why doesn't it say:

• "There is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in reducing pain and muscle hypertonicity in horses. The efficacy of specific equine manual therapy techniques is unknown."{ref Haussler (2010)}

Do you see my problem? When two reliable sources disagree, we attribute them so that they are seen to be the conclusions of two differing sources. WP:ASF tells us to assert, not attribute, undisputed conclusions. The effect of the heavy attribution in that section is to indirectly cast doubt on Haussler's findings. Why? Is it coincidental that this occurs where the text is critical and not where the text is uncritical? Those two cases are merely the most obvious examples of a common problem that appears several times in the text and consequently I think the article still has a way to go to reach NPOV. --RexxS (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey RexxS, thanks for the input. Can we please keep it to the paragraph at hand (I have pasted it below)....any problems in the LEAD can be discussed in a new thread. With regard to your comment, I agree, attribution for the systematic review is not needed, I will remove it. That said however, the real issue here is whether the 3 primary sources that are given brief mention at the end of the efficacy paragraph are in violation of policy. I believe that we have put them in context sufficiently and have given them appropriate weight (ie: less than that of the secondary sources). I fail to see a good arguement for why they must be excluded entirely, they are interesting, just inconclusive (and labelled as inconclusive in the article so there is no mistake).Puhlaa (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What is your thought on attribution for the guidelines? I feel that naming the body that produced the guidelines (The American Animal Hospital Association and the American Association of Feline Practitioners) is valuable, so I prefer to maintain the attribution here. What are your thoughts?Puhlaa (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Paragraph under question that contains primary sources:

There is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization for equine pain management and the efficacy of specific equine manual therapy techniques is unknown. The American Animal Hospital Association and the American Association of Feline Practitioners have stated that there is currently insufficient evidence to make specific recommendations about the use of chiropractic intervention for dogs and cats. A recent survey has suggested that the use of allied health therapies, including animal chiropractic, for the treatment of competition race horses is widespread and many riders or trainers perceived it to be beneficial. One study has suggested that chiropractic manipulation might increase pain thresholds in healthy horses. Another small study has suggested that chiropractic manipulation can cause changes in thoracolumbar and pelvic kinematics in healthy horses, however, it is not yet known if these changes are beneficial.

Hi Puhlaa, it's been a while, but I haven't shifted my opinions much. You know that I'd take out every primary medical source if it were up to me, on the grounds that if the mainstream literature hasn't reviewed it, it's not worth quoting in Wikipedia. But I accept that exceptions exist for niche topics, and I'd trust your thoroughness in weighing the advantages of having something to hang some text on against the disadvantage that primary sources often get refuted or discarded by later secondary reviews. You've spotted by now that refs 21 & 25 are the same, I guess? Anyway, my view about attributing guidelines is that the name of the authors is only a click away, but I agree that knowing it's the American Animal Hospital Association and the American Association of Feline Practitioners does serve the purpose of providing context that a cite to Kevin Haussler obviously doesn't. It's the sort of exception that "proves the rule" about attribution. You don't need me to say that exceptions are meant to be exceptional - do your best to make sure that the vast majority of sources indisputably meet MEDRS, and you'll know you've got the article right. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS, I missed the replication of the guidelines...fixed now! I am not opposed to primary sources as you and BR are, as long as they are qualified and not refuting better sources. This is especially the case, as you mention, in specific 'niche topics'. Anyways, it doesnt matter to me here, I have no vested interest in animal care. I was just trying to be the middle ground in a disagreement between DVMt and BR after being contacted for help [2]. As I state above, I read DVMt's edits, removed any policy violations I saw (emphasized secondary sources and qualified the primary sources) and replaced the guidelines that I thought were appropriate, while trying to maintain some of the efforts of DVMt, who had put some work in to finding real sources. If other editors are still not satisfied I am open to suggestions, but mass reversion of someones efforts is unhelpful for many reasons. Thus, I was trying to find a middle ground, especially because the sources are not garbage, just not the highest quality.Puhlaa (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What is Objective?

I recently attempted to "spruce-up" the vet chiro page. The grammer, spelling, capitalization, etc. is ridiculous. I also edited and made several corrections to the history of animal chiropractic. I should know, I have been there from the beginning. See my page. My edits, although many with legal and scientific citations, were quickly "undone" by DVMt, a self professed "skeptic" (see DVMt's page) Although I do agree that some of the information I added could be left out until more citations are added, the majority is pure history and fact. But come on, why let facts get in the way of a skeptic who professes to be inspired by evidence based discussions. So I ask; What is Objective? Why are so many that profess to be "evidence-based" so afraid of the evidence?

Many of the statements on the present vet chiro page are simply not true. But they do provide an agenda for confusing the public and the profession. So again I ask, WHAT IS OBJECTIVE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDennisEschbach (talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you add your proposal here to the talk page and we can go over it. DVMt (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Animal chiropractic

The above article is a redirect to this article, but in its history, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_chiropractic&oldid=604238901 , there is quite a bit of information and some sources that can be freely used to enhance this article. The attribution is saved in the redirect history, so there's no problem there. I'd do it myself it I knew anything about the subject. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Veterinary chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080520020423/http://www.avma.org:80/press/releases/070714_comp_alt_med.asp to http://avma.org/press/releases/070714_comp_alt_med.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Take to talk

"Take to talk" means the article talk page, QuackGuru, not the editor's user page (unless it's an issue across multiple articles. Montanabw^(talk) 06:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Usage is not about efficacy. QuackGuru (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it is very widespread, particularly in the horse racing world. Removing it is not appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It is in the article. See "A 2011 survey in New Zealand found that use of animal chiropractic on competition race horses is widespread.[10]" See Veterinary chiropractic#Scope.QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that now. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Usage

How much something is used does not say whether or not it works Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No. But the article should include content that indicates how wide usage is. It doesn't do that sufficiently from what I can see. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

Popularity does not equal effectiveness. It is difficult to find many sources for usage. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Usage does not mean effective. I am suggesting that we need to note the range of usage as a way of describing all of, what this is, how it is used, and how effective it is so that we have a balanced view of the topic area. I have looked at only a few sources at this point and am not familiar with the area so not sure what there is. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

I added "It has become a fast developing area.[3]" QuackGuru (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The heading "Usage" is really grating on me for some reason. It would be more consistent with other similar articles if it was headed "Practice" but we already have "Clinical practice" so perhaps the content should be in that section. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I merged it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Source?

I can't seem to find content in the source for this cite (below). Line three of the article. Could someone post the page number. Thank you.

Veterinary chiropractic methods can potentially cause injury through the use of inappropriate technique or excessive force.[3]

I do see this below under Chiropractic care same source

Chiropractic Care

This Task Force has not found sufficient, reliable, noncontradictory evidence for the use of chiropractic care for pain management in veterinary medicine at this time. That said, chiropractic care has many well-defined applications in human medicine that have been supported through reliable research.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

As well, the source is a guideline specific to dogs and cats so the statement over reaches the source assuming the content is actually based on the source cited.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

Page number 76 has very little information on chiropractic care. It does not verify the current claim. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If that is the only content in the source on chiropractic and as I said I don't see anything else (I posted the content form the source above) although, I could have missed it, then I agree the source does not verify the content in the article and the content should be removed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Veterinary chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080417052553/http://www.avma.org:80/advocacy/state/issues/la_cavm_state_reg_models.asp to http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/la_cavm_state_reg_models.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

New review article

A new review has been published that should make a good source for this wikipedia article.

Abstract: "Joint mobilization and manipulation provide important diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for addressing musculoskeletal issues in veterinary medicine. Soft tissue and joint mobilization are used to assess the quality and quantity of joint range of motion and as a primary means of treating musculoskeletal disorders. Spinal manipulation was shown to be effective for reducing pain, improving flexibility, reducing muscle tone, and improving symmetry of spinal kinematics in horses. Because of potential misuse and safety issues, joint mobilization and manipulative therapies should be provided only by specially trained veterinarians or licensed human manual therapists." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27012508 108.181.201.237 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract. 2016 Apr;32(1):87-101. doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2015.12.003. That's a pretty reliable source, does someone have a link to the full text version? Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Order of Page

I was wondering if the page layout would make more sense having history first and then diving further into the practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbeyZastrow (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)