UNASSIGNED: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a stage between health and dementia, with various symptoms including memory, language, and visuospatial impairment. Chiropractic, a manual therapy that seeks to improve the function of the body and spine, has been shown to affect sensorimotor processing, multimodal sensory processing, and mental processing tasks.
UNASSIGNED: In this paper, the effect of chiropractic intervention on Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals in patients with mild cognitive impairment was investigated. EEG signals from two groups of patients with mild cognitive impairment (n = 13 people in each group) were recorded pre- and post-control and chiropractic intervention. A comparison of relative power was done with the support vector machine (SVM) method and non-parametric cluster-based permutation test showing the two groups could be separately identified with high accuracy.
UNASSIGNED: The highest accuracy was obtained in beta2 (25-35 Hz) and theta (4-8 Hz) bands. A comparison of different brain areas with the SVM method showed that the intervention had a greater effect on frontal areas. Also, interhemispheric coherence in all regions increased significantly after the intervention. The results of the Wilcoxon test showed that intrahemispheric coherence changes in frontal-occipital, frontal-temporal and right temporal-occipital regions were significantly different in two groups.
UNASSIGNED: Comparison of the results obtained from chiropractic intervention and previous studies shows that chiropractic intervention can have a positive effect on MCI disease and using this method may slow down the progression of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer\'s disease.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is significantly associated with fractures and burdens the health of especially older people. Osteoporotic fractures cause pain, disability, and increased mortality. Early diagnosis of osteoporosis allows earlier initiation of treatment, thereby reducing the risk of osteoporotic fractures. Chiropractors encounter potential osteoporotic patients daily, and perform radiological evaluation of these and other patients, including evaluation of X-rays done for other purposes than osteoporosis. Therefore, chiropractors may identify vertebral fractures, vertebral deformity or osteopenia not otherwise suspected or recorded.
METHODS: This study examines procedures available to the chiropractor to describe conventional X-rays with the focus of osteoporosis related findings. We review the indications for radiological examination in chiropractic practice, and in the realm of osteoporosis we describe radiological methods available for examination of conventional radiographs, and the necessity of inter-disciplinary communication.
RESULTS: National guidelines are available regarding referral for X-rays in chiropractic practice. Standardized protocols ensure image acquisition of the highest quality in the chiropractors\' radiological department. Conventional X-ray examination is not indicated on clinical suspicion of osteoporosis alone, as bone mineral density testing is the diagnostic test. Radiological assessment of all available X-rays of patients above the age of 50 years should include evaluation of the bone quality, and hip and vertebral fracture assessment. The Singh index, Genant Semi-Quantitative tool (GSQ), and Algorithm-Based Qualitative method (ABQ) should be used consistently during interpretation. Referral for additional imaging and evaluation should be prompt and systematic when needed.
CONCLUSIONS: This article presents an overview of evidence-based radiological procedures for the purpose of promoting early diagnosis of osteoporosis. We present recommendations to the clinicians where we propose an opportunistic evaluation of X-rays, done for any reason, which include systematic evaluation of bone quality, presence of hip and vertebral fractures, and vertebral deformation of all patients above the age of 50 years. Detailed referral to healthcare professionals for further diagnostic evaluation is performed when needed. Consistent, high-quality radiological procedures in chiropractic practices could feasibly contribute to the timely diagnosis of osteoporosis, ultimately minimizing the impact of osteoporosis-related complications on patients\' health.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to update the results of the first Swiss Job Analysis Survey in 2009 with regard to the demographics of the chiropractors and their patients, practice characteristics, interprofessional collaboration, the importance of imaging, and job satisfaction.
METHODS: In April 2020, the adapted 2009 questionnaire was electronically sent to all members of the Swiss Chiropractic Association ChiroSuisse (N = 316). Only complete questionnaires were included in the descriptive analysis. Demographic data were compared to all ChiroSuisse members.
RESULTS: The response rate was 76.3%. The mean age of the participants was 49.9 ± 12.3 years and 62.2% were male. Among the younger chiropractors (≤ 15 years of professional experience), 51.6% were male. Almost half of the participants worked in a joint office and one in five worked in a multidisciplinary setting. The typical chiropractic patient was middle-aged, female and suffered most frequently from acute lower back/pelvis pain and second most frequently from neck pain. Diversified osseous adjustment was the most commonly used technique, followed by advice on activities of daily living and trigger point therapy. Images (X-ray, CT, MRI) were ordered in less than 20% of the patients. 95% of the chiropractors were satisfied with their career choice.
CONCLUSIONS: No changes to 2009 were observed in terms of the typical patient or the applied techniques. However, the Swiss chiropractors were more experienced, to a larger proportion female, more often worked in multidisciplinary settings, and ordered fewer images. Job satisfaction among Swiss chiropractors was high.

Recent media coverage of high-profile cases of cervical artery dissection (CAD) has ignited the discussion about the role of cervical spine manipulation (CSM) in causing cervical artery dissection. However, research does not support a causal association between cervical spine manipulation and cervical artery dissection in a healthy cervical spine. The objective of this study was to review the 10 most recent case reports of cervical spine manipulation and cervical artery dissection for convincing evidence of the causation of cervical artery dissection by cervical spine manipulation. Nine of 10 case reports showed no convincing evidence of a causal relationship between cervical spine manipulation and cervical artery dissection. The 10th case report was exceptional as the CSM was contraindicated by pre-existing cervical spine pathology. We conclude that these 10 case reports provide no convincing evidence of the causation of cervical artery dissection by cervical spine manipulation in a healthy cervical spine. One case report demonstrated that cervical spine manipulation can cause cervical artery dissection when performed in the presence of pre-existing cervical spine pathology. Therefore, we conclude that practitioners should exclude cervical spine pathology before performing cervical spine manipulation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate symptom trajectories in chiropractic patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with LSS were recruited from chiropractic clinics and self-reported questionnaires were collected at baseline and 1-year follow-up. Patients received weekly text messages about low back pain (LBP) and leg symptoms for 1 year. Group-based trajectory modelling was performed to identify symptom trajectory groups. The groups were compared based on patient characteristics, LBP and leg pain intensity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ).
RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were included in the analysis. A three-group trajectory model was chosen: \'improving\' (16%), \'fluctuating/improving\' (30%), and \'persistent\' (54%). The \'persistent\' group had a higher proportion of women [71% (95% CI 57-82%)] than the \'improving\' group 29% (95% CI 11-56%), and a higher ODI score at both baseline [34.2 (95% CI 29.7-38.8) vs. 22.8 (16.4-29.1)] and 1-year follow-up [28.1 (95% CI 23.2-33.0) vs. 4.8 (0.1-9.4)]. Similar differences were observed for ZCQ symptom and function scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Pain symptoms in people with LSS followed distinctly different trajectories. Half of the sample had a pattern of consistently severe symptoms over a year, while the other half either improved rapidly or experienced fluctuating symptoms with some improvement.

BACKGROUND: Radiography is commonly used in the assessment of spinal disorders, despite a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating improved clinical outcomes or additional benefit to the patient. There is disagreement amongst chiropractors regarding the appropriate use of radiography for clinical management. This study aims to qualitatively explore chiropractors\' perceptions on the use of spinal radiographs in clinical practice with respect to how they determine when to order radiographs; and how they use radiographs to inform clinical management.
METHODS: Online qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 Australian chiropractors who currently manage patients with spinal disorders. Convienence, snowball, and purposive sampling strategies were used to ensure an appropriate breadth and depth of participant characterisitcs and beliefs. Interview data were recorded, transcribed and analysed using framework analysis.
RESULTS: Three themes were developed to describe how chiropractors determined when to order radiographs. These themes included specific findings from the clinical encounter that may inform clinical management, their perceptions of radiation risk, and the influence of clinical experience/intuition. Three themes and four subthemes were developed for how chiropractors use radiographs to inform their management. These themes explored the use of radiography for the application of chiropractic technique, as well as the role of radiographs in predicting patient prognosis, and as an educational tool to provide reassurance.
CONCLUSIONS: Australian chiropractors\' decision-making around spinal radiography is diverse and can be influenced by a number of clinical and external factors. Previously unexplored uses of spinal radiography in clinical practice were highlighted. Some chiropractors reported potential benefits of radiography that are currently not supported by research evidence. Future research should address how radiographic findings are reported to patients with spinal disorders and how this could be optimised to improve patient outcomes.

We present a case report of diagnosis of cervical spine multiple sclerosis by a chiropractic physician. This unique case contributes an account of a challenging differential diagnosis to the literature. A 30-year-old male presented with a three-year history of diffuse left upper extremity motor strength deficits and paresthesia (numbness and tingling). The patient had seen multiple physicians for these symptoms with no diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and no advanced imaging. The differential diagnosis included lower cervical spine nerve root compression or neurological disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cerebral lesion, motor neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, or spinal cord lesion. MRI of the cervical spine with and without IV contrast revealed evidence of spinal cord multiple sclerosis. The patient was referred to a neurologist where the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis was confirmed. A 10-year follow-up showed the patient was controlling his condition with medications and had no disability. This case underscores the importance for physicians to consider neurological conditions and advanced imaging in the presence of diffuse motor strength deficits and paresthesia in the absence of injury, pain, or any other symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-known benefits of physical activity, physical inactivity is presently a global health pandemic. Allied healthcare providers, such as chiropractors, knowingly recognise the importance of physical activity and are prepared to routinely discuss and/or counsel patients on this topic; however, little is known about Australian chiropractors in the physical activity setting. Our aim was to explore and identify factors associated with physical activity promotion among Australian chiropractors, including their knowledge of the physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines and their own levels of physical activity.
METHODS: From February to May 2021, a convenience sample of Australian chiropractors completed an online survey. Items assessed by Likert scale included: physical activity promotion frequency, with the type, quantity, barriers, perceptions, and feasibility. We asked questions about their familiarity with, and knowledge of, Australian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines, chiropractors\' own physical activity, and whether the chiropractors met activity guidelines. Survey responses were descriptively reported. Univariable logistic regression models explored factors explaining frequent physical activity promotion.
RESULTS: Of 217 respondents, 64% reported that they frequently (≥ 70%) recommended a more physically active lifestyle. Only 15% often performed pre-exercise screening, 73% frequently prescribed resistance exercise, 19% reported time as the most frequent barrier, while 37% reported being not at all familiar with the guidelines. Univariable logistic regression models found male chiropractors were more likely to promote physical activity, [odds ratio (OR) = 2.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32-4.12)], while chiropractors who frequently treat children 0-3 years (OR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.28-0.87), children 4-18 years (OR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.21-0.86), and pregnant women (OR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.26-0.94) were less likely. Chiropractors were more likely to promote physical activity if they were familiar with the activity guidelines (OR = 2.9; 95% CI: 1.32-6.41), were confident promoting (OR = 11.6; 95% CI: 1.37-98.71) and prescribing physical activity programs (OR = 4.5; 95% CI: 2.03-9.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Most chiropractors confidently and regularly integrate physical activity into practice. Yet, despite acknowledging its importance, one third of chiropractors reported poor knowledge of the Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines. Identifying barriers to the awareness, and implementation of physical activity guidelines should be further explored within chiropractic clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE: Since 1963 the Canadian Chiropractic Examining Board has conducted competency examinations for individuals seeking licensure to practice chiropractic in Canada. To maintain currency with changes in practice, examination content and methodology have been regularly updated since that time. This paper describes the process used by the Canadian Chiropractic Examining Board to restructure the examination to ensure it was current and to align it with the 2018 Federation of Canadian Chiropractic\'s Canadian Chiropractic Entry-to-Practice Competency Profile.
METHODS: A subject-matter-expert committee developed proposed candidate outcomes (indicators) for a new examination, derived from the competency profile. A national survey of practice was undertaken to determine the importance and frequency-of-use of the profile\'s enabling competencies. Survey results, together with other practice-based data and further subject-matter-expert input, were used to validate indicators and to create a new structure for the examination.
RESULTS: The new examination is a combination of single-focus and case-based multiple-choice questions, and OSCE (objective, structured, clinical examination) methodology. Content mapping and item weighting were determined by a blueprinting committee and are provided.
CONCLUSIONS: Administration of the new examination commenced in early 2024.

Many clinicians use radiological imaging in efforts to locate and diagnose the cause of their patient\'s pain, relying on X-rays as a leading tool in clinical evaluation. This is fundamentally flawed because an X-ray represents a \"snapshot\" of the structural appearance of the spine and gives no indication of the current function of the spine. The health and well-being of any system, including the spinal motion segments, depend on the inter-relationship between structure and function. Pain, tissue damage, and injury are not always directly correlated. Due to such a high incidence of abnormalities found in asymptomatic patients, the diagnostic validity of X-rays can be questioned, especially when used in isolation of history and/or proper clinical assessment. The utility of routine X-rays is, therefore, questionable. One may posit that their application promotes overdiagnosis, and unvalidated treatment of X-ray findings (such as changes in postural curvature), which may mislead patients into believing these changes are directly responsible for their pain. A substantial amount of research has shown that there is no association between pain and reversed cervical curves. Accuracy can also be questioned, as X-ray measurements can vary based on the patient\'s standing position, which research shows is influenced by an overwhelming number of factors, such as patient positioning, patient physical and morphological changes over time, doctor interreliability, stress, pain, the patient\'s previous night\'s sleep or physical activity, hydration, and/or emotional state. Furthermore, research has concluded that strong evidence links various potential harms with routine, repeated X-rays, such as altered treatment procedures, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and unnecessary costs. Over the past two decades, medical boards and health associations worldwide have made a substantial effort to communicate better \"when\" imaging is required, with most education around reducing radiographic imaging. In this review, we describe concerns relating to the high-frequency, routine use of spinal X-rays in the primary care setting for spine-related pain in the absence of red-flag clinical signs.