Critique of the Canadian Stroke Consortium's Spontaneous vs. Traumatic Arterial Dissection Study

Journal of the American Chiropractic Association, May 2004 by Haneline, Michael T, Lewkovich, Gary

In the 2000 CSC paper, the authors contended that there is unwillingness on the part of practitioners of neck manipulation to report adverse events, with consequent underreporting of the incidence of manipulation-related CAD. This statement is also without foundation and is unsubstantiated in the literature. Another example of an unsupported comment was an implication that practitioners of manipulation "... pretend they never happened" (referring to manipulation being associated with CAD). Conversely, there has been an abundance of material published within the chiropractic and medical literature by chiropractic practitioners in an attempt to appreciate the magnitude of this problem.

Conclusion

The CSC Spontaneous vs. Traumatic Arterial Dissection Study, and some of the related articles that it has spawned, exhibit a number of serious flaws raising questions about the real intentions of these researchers. While the relationship of CAD to spinal manipulation and other associated factors certainly warrants further investigation, quality, unbiased research would certainly better serve the health care profession and the general public.

References

1. Norri's JW, Beletsky V, Nadareishvili ZG. Sudden neck movement and cervical artery dissection. The Canadian Stroke Consortium. CMAJ 2000;163(1):38-40.

2. Saeed AB, Shuaib A, AL-Sulaiti G, Emery D. Vertebral artery dissection: warning symptoms, clinical features and prognosis in 26 patients. Can J Neural Sci 2000;27(4):292-6.

3. Mas JL, Bousser MG, Hasboun D, LapLane D. Extracranial vertebral artery dissections: a review of 13 cases. Stroke 1987;18(6):1037-47.

4. Biller J, Hingtgen WL, Adams HP, Jr., Smoker WR, Godersky JC, Toffol GJ. Cervicocephalic arterial dissections. A ten-year experience. Arch Neurol 1986;43(12):1234-8.

5. Brandt T, Hausser I, Orberk E, Grau A, Hartschuh W, Anton-Lamprecht I, et al. Ultrastructural connective tissue abnormalities in patients with spontaneous cervicocerebral artery dissections. Ann Neural 1998;44(2):281-5.

6. Rothwell DM, Bondy SJ, Williams JI. Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case -control study. Stroke 2001;32(5):1054-60.

7. Kapral MK, Bondy SJ. Cervical manipulation and risk of stroke. CMAJ 2001;165(7):907-8.

8. Haldeman S, Carey P, Townsend M, Papadopoulos C. Arterial dissections following cervical manipulation: the chiropractic experience. CMAJ 2001;165(7):905-906.

9. Norris JW. Cervical manipulation: how risky is it? CMAJ 2001;164(6):752-753.

10. O'Connor A. Cervical manipulation: how risky is it? CMAJ 2001;164(6):751-2.

11. Sydenham R. Cervical manipulation: how risky is it? CAiXlJ 2001;164(6):750-1; discussion 752.

12. Lecker B, Pethrick T. Cervical manipulation: how risky is it? CAiXU 2001;164(6):749-50; discussion 752.

13. CSC. Canadian Stroke Consortium. In: http://www.strokeconsortium.ca/; 2002.

14. Beletsky V. Spontaneous vs. traumatic artery dissection study (SPONTADS). In: Canadian Stroke Consortium; 2002.

15. Shi L. Health services research methods. Albany: Delmar Publishers; 1997.