|
January 2006, Vol. 16, No. 1
Table of Contents
CBP® Non-Profit Matches Dr. Bill Harris' $25,000 Research Grant • Counter Point Round III • Dr Deed Harrison is the Most Published Chiropractor in the Index Medicus • Flawed Thinking • It's Don's Opinion • JCCA Publishes CBP® Structural Rehab Protocol • More Studies to Confirm the Validity and Reliability of PosturePrint™ • Thriving in the New Health Care Marketplace • Organic Chiropractic • Patient Education • Point Round III • The Purpose Driven Practice • Radiation Hormesis • Research Corner • Subluxation Update • System Failure • Ten New Year's Resolutions for Your Practice • Chiropractic: A Useful Component of Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabiitation • Triano is a Chiropractic Pariah •
back to front page
it's Don's Opinion
Evidence of CCGPP's Selective Literature Review
by Donald D. Harrison, PhD, DC, MSE
Originator of CBP® Technique
Don Harrison received his B.S. (Mathematics) from the University of Washington in 1968, his M.S. (Mathematics) from the University of Texas at El Paso in 1971, a Secondary Teaching Certificate in education from Western Washington State University in 1973, and his DC degree from Western States Chiropractic College in 1979. He received his M.S.E. (Mechanical Engineering) in 1997 and his Ph.D. (Mathematics) in 1998, both from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He has taught mathematics in junior high, high school, two community colleges in Washington and Oregon, and at Washington State University. He had private practices in Sunnyvale, California and Evanston, Wyoming from 1979-1993.
He originated CBP® Technique in 1980 and is the author of two CBP® text books, a CBP® x-ray workbook, and more than 60 articles in peer-reviewed indexed journals.
If you had any doubts before, forget it! The CCGPP guidelines are guidelines (they claim “Best Practices”) and they are based on a selective literature review. Let me give you a few examples from ONLY the “Cervical Best Practices” of ccgpp, which were just recently released.
Example #1:
Our CBP® Normal spinal model is one example. As Dr. Oakley pointed out last issue, the CBP® Normal spinal model is NOT theoretic, as Dr. Triano claims, but is based on averages from Normal subjects.1-7 That is how all normals in anatomy and physiology are determined, i.e., averages of human values. We believe that Triano has never read our modeling papers, or he would realize this. His ccgpp committee members must just believe his comments about our spinal modeling papers, and thus they refused to include our modeling papers as a Normal model for a goal of care. This effectively eliminates structural rehabilitation from their guidelines, since a normal structural alignment is the goal of such rehabilitation. Thus, by ignoring structural rehab, it allows them to push forward their agenda of pain relief.
Out of our 3 cervical spine modeling papers,1-3 of which two were in Spine (19961, 20043), ccgpp referenced the one we published in JMPT in 19972 and ignored the two in Spine. Obviously, Spine is a high impact journal and JMPT is not. Additionally, our 2004 cervical spine modeling3 in Spine reported that our model could discriminate between normal subjects, acute pain subjects, and chronic pain subjects. Good thing ccgpp ignored that paper, saves them explaining why they ignore structural alignment as an outcome!
From page 127, ccgpp’s Chiropractic Guidelines Neck
“Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Troyanovich SJ, Harrison DE, Colloca CJ. Evaluation of the assumptions used to derive an ideal normal cervical spine model. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997 May; 20(4): 246-56.
PMID: 9168409
Rating: 11a”
Example #2:
For my second example, consider their selective review of CBP® Clinical Control Trial research from 1994. In 1994, in JMPT, we published a clinical control trial on restoration of the cervical lordosis with extension traction.8 This Clinical Control Trial was the first paper to report routine changes in cervical lordosis with long term care (CBP®). We had a very negative set of 2 “Letters to the JMPT Editor” from D. Hariman, DC, DACBR in 1995.9,11 Hariman’s letters were full of false claims and personal opinions, which we “nuked” in our responses, immediately following Hariman’s letters, in JMPT.10,12 So out of a Clinical Control Trial, two letters to the editor, and two of our author responses, GUESS what was cited by ccgpp?? That’s right! The ccgpp cited only the second negative letter to the editor by Hariman, and NOT the Clinical Control Trial, NOR our thorough rebuttals to Hariman. How/why did the ccgpp miss a Clinical Control Trial?? My opinion: On purpose!
From page 127, ccgpp’s Chiropractic Guidelines Neck
“Hariman DG. The efficacy of cervical extension-compression traction combined with diversified manipulation and drop table adjustments in the rehabilitation of cervical lordosis: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995 Jun; 18(5): 323-5.
Publication Types: • Comment • Letter, PMID: 7673802, Rating: 5c”
Example #3:
In 2004, we published another CBP® cervical spine Clinical Control Trial in the US Governments VA journal, Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development (JRRD).13 I believe that we are the only Chiropractic Clinical Control Trial published in this journal. In fact, the VA’s JRRD Editor solicited our corresponding author, Rene Cailliet, MD, for a paper from us, after noting our good work in the literature. This Clinical Control Trial reported improvements in neck alignment on AP radiographs. This Clinical Control Trial13 was completely ignored by the ccgpp committee. When citing such nonsensical items as letters to journal editors, how/why did the ccgpp miss a Clinical Control Trial?? My opinion: On purpose!
For this analysis, I just looked at the CBP® references in the ccgpp’s cervical spine release. I did not do a thorough investigation. From this brief reading, ccgpp’s bias was evident. Let me ask you, is ccgpp fair and honest, or just the agenda of this subgroup of control freaks, who wish to restrict chiropractic care in 2005 like they did in the early 1990’s in Mercy?
References
1. Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Troyanovich SJ, Holland B. Comparisons of Lordotic Cervical Spine Curvatures to a Theoretical Ideal Model of the Static Sagittal Cervical Spine. Spine 1996;21(6):667-675.
2. Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Troyanovich SJ, Harrison DE, Colloca CJ. Evaluations of the Assumptions Used to Derive an Ideal Normal Cervical Spine Model. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1997;20(4): 246-256.
3. Harrison DD, Harrison DE, Janik TJ, Cailliet R, Haas JW, Ferrantelli J, Holland B. Modeling of the Sagittal Cervical Spine as a Method to Discriminate Hypo-Lordosis: Results of Elliptical and Circular Modeling in 72 Asymptomatic Subjects, 52 Acute Neck Pain Subjects, and 70 Chronic Neck Pain Subjects. Spine 2004; 29(22):2485-2492.
4. Harrison DE, Janik TJ, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Harmon S. Can the Thoracic Kyphosis be Modeled with a Simple Geometric Shape? The Results of Circular and Elliptical Modeling in 80 Asymptomatic Subjects. J Spinal Disord Tech 2002; 15(3): 213-220.
5. Harrison DD, Harrison DE, Janik TJ, Cailliet R, Haas JW. Do Alterations in Vertebral and Disc Dimensions Affect an Elliptical Model of the Thoracic Kyphosis? Spine 2003; 28(5): 463-469.
6. Janik TJ, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovich SJ, Harrison DE. Can the Sagittal Lumbar Curvature be Closely Approximated by an Ellipse? J Orthop Res 1998; 16(6):766-70.
7. Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Janik TJ, Troyanovich SJ, Harrison DE, Holland B. Elliptical Modeling of the Sagittal Lumbar Lordosis and Segmental Rotation Angles as a Method to Discriminate Between Normal and Low Back Pain Subjects. J Spinal Disord 1998; 11(5): 430-439.
8. Harrison DD, Jackson BL, Troyanovich SJ, Robertson G, De George D, Barker WF. The efficacy of cervical extension-compression traction combined with diversified manipulation and drop table adjustments in the rehabilitation of cervical lordosis: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1994;17:454-464.
9. Hariman DG. Letter: The efficacy of cervical extension-compression traction combined with diversified manipulation and drop table adjustments in the rehabilitation of cervical lordosis: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995 Jun; 18(1): 42.
10. Harrison DD, Troyanovich SJ. Response to Hariman DG’s Letter to Editor [The Efficacy of Cervical Extension-Compression Traction Combined with Diversified Manipulation and Drop Table Adjustments in the Rehabilitation of Cervical Lordosis.J Manip Physiol Ther 1994;17(7):454-464.]. J Manip Physiol Ther 1995;18(1):42-44.
11. Hariman DG. 2nd Letter: The efficacy of cervical extension-compression traction combined with diversified manipulation and drop table adjustments in the rehabilitation of cervical lordosis: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995 Jun; 18(5): 323-4.
12. Harrison DD, Troyanovich SJ. 2nd Response to Hariman DG’s Letter to Editor [The Efficacy of Cervical Extension-Compression Traction Combined with Diversified Manipulation and Drop Table Adjustments in the Rehabilitation of Cervical Lordosis.J Manip Physiol Ther 1994;17(7):454-464.]. J Manip Physiol Ther 1995;18(5):4 324-325.
13. Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Betz J, et al. Conservative methods for reducing lateral translation postures of the head: A non-randomized clinical control trial. J Rehab Res Dev 2004; 41(4): 631-640.
| 
