Readers are cautioned to wait for the full reports to be published in peer-reviewed journals before drawing final conclusions, but as a group, results were highly intriguing. The following represents some of the conclusions that are being discussed. There is no apparent difference in outcomes comparing cervical adjusting, full spine adjusting, or a combination of the two for chronic back pain patients. Manipulation compared to manipulation with cervical traction may be more effective for tension-type headaches. Back school was more cost-effective than joint manipulation, myofascial therapy, or myofascial therapy with joint manipulation for subacute low back pain.
Spinal adjustments appear more effective than a placebo for infantile colic.
Thoracic adjustments may be more effective than placebo ultrasound for thoracic spine pain, but may not last beyond the treatment phase. A regimen of chiropractic adjustments may be more effective than a control treatment for migraine sufferers, but it is difficult to predict which individuals will respond vs. those who won't . Both manual adjustments and instrument-assisted adjustments may equally be effective for cervical spine dysfunction. Following manipulation, MI decreased significantly in the involved legs of the treatment group, while MI in the contralateral legs of the treatment group and both legs of the control group did not. The result might have implications for the treatment of patients with anterior knee pain and sacroiliac dysfunction because muscle inhibition is associated with knee pain.