Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
published February 2015
TITLE
Risk of Stroke After Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation in Medicare B Beneficiaries Aged 66 to 99 Years With Neck Pain
Same Study As Reference 11
SOURCE
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25596875/
REFERENCE
25
NICE
REFERENCE
123
organisation
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
published February 2015
TITLE
Risk of Stroke After Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation in Medicare B Beneficiaries Aged 66 to 99 Years With Neck Pain
Same Study As Reference 11
SOURCE
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25596875/
DISC COMMENTARY
This entry links to the same paper as Reference 11, a retrospective cohort study examining stroke risk after chiropractic spinal manipulation in older Medicare patients with neck pain. It is reached here through a separate PubMed record of that same publication.
What was studied?
See Reference 11 for full details: stroke risk among Medicare Part B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 with neck pain who saw a chiropractor compared with those who saw a primary care doctor.
What did they find?
See Reference 11 for the full findings. In short, the study found no meaningful difference in stroke risk between older adults who saw a chiropractor for neck pain and those who saw a primary care doctor.
Why it matters
See Reference 11 for the full discussion. Comparing chiropractic patients against primary care patients with the same complaint offers a fair basis for judging whether this rare event is linked to treatment itself.
Why we included it
This entry is kept separate from Reference 11 because it points to a different online record of the same paper. See Reference 11 for the full explanation.
Help us improve your experience (and hopefully your back).
We use cookies to improve the website and show relevant content to people interested in our services.
We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You can choose which categories to allow below. Cookies categorised as Necessary are always active.
We also use third-party cookies for analytics and advertising. These are only stored with your consent. You can update or withdraw consent at any time via the cookie icon at the bottom-left. This site operates under UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR). Cookie Policy • Privacy Policy
Always Active
Necessary cookies are required for core site features including security, network management, and consent storage.
Cookie
Duration
Description
hmdg_cookie_consent
180 days
Stores your cookie consent preferences.
PHPSESSID
Session
WordPress session identifier.
wordpress_logged_in_*
Session
WordPress login authentication.
Functional cookies enable enhanced features such as live chat and remembering preferences.
Cookie
Duration
Description
wp-settings-*
1 year
Stores user interface preferences.
Analytics cookies help us understand visitor behaviour. Controls analytics_storage for Google Analytics 4.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_ga
2 years
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_ga_*
2 years
Google Analytics 4 — session persistence.
_gid
24 hours
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_gat
1 minute
Google Analytics — throttles request rate.
Performance cookies collect aggregate, anonymous data about site performance.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_gat_gtag_*
1 minute
Google Tag Manager — rate throttle.
Marketing cookies track visits to deliver relevant ads. Controls ad_storage, ad_user_data, and ad_personalization.
What was studied?
See Reference 11 for full details: stroke risk among Medicare Part B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 with neck pain who saw a chiropractor compared with those who saw a primary care doctor.
What did they find?
See Reference 11 for the full findings. In short, the study found no meaningful difference in stroke risk between older adults who saw a chiropractor for neck pain and those who saw a primary care doctor.
Why it matters
See Reference 11 for the full discussion. Comparing chiropractic patients against primary care patients with the same complaint offers a fair basis for judging whether this rare event is linked to treatment itself.
Why we included it
This entry is kept separate from Reference 11 because it points to a different online record of the same paper. See Reference 11 for the full explanation.