↓ Skip to main content

Commentary: we can tell where it hurts, but can we tell where the pain is coming from or where we should manipulate?

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Commentary: we can tell where it hurts, but can we tell where the pain is coming from or where we should manipulate?
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/2045-709x-21-35
Pubmed ID
Authors

O’Dane Brady, Scott Haldeman

Abstract

The shared decision making process has become increasingly important in the management of spinal disorders where there remains a variety of treatment options. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is often recommended as a conservative option by evidence based clinical practice guidelines and a treatment modality frequently utilized by chiropractors and other clinicians who offer SMT to their patients. This article serves as a commentary to a review of the methods that are often used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying their manipulative intervention. Though it may be easy to criticize any review of this type of literature and point out shortcomings there are strong take away messages for the clinician interested in employing SMT as a part of their treatment protocol. Most notably, clinicians can be reassured that a history on the localization of pain, tissue palpation, provocative testing, range of motion testing and the demonstration by the patient of the locus and description of pain have reasonable consistency between observers. What this paper does not inform us on is the nature of the lesion causing the pain or where the manipulation should be applied to obtain the best outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 4%
Australia 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 18%
Other 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 7 25%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 21%