Over the past decade, mechanical adjusting devices (MAD’s) were a major source of debate within the Chiropractors’ Association of Saskatchewan (CAS). Since Saskatchewan was the only jurisdiction in North America to prohibit the use of MAD’s the CAS established a committee in 2001 to review the literature on MAD. The committee evaluated the literature on the efficacy, safety, and uses of moving stylus instruments within chiropractic practice, and the educational requirements for chiropractic practice. Following the rating criteria for the evaluation of evidence, as outlined in the Clinical Guidelines for Chiropractic Practice in Canada (1994), the committee reviewed 55 articles – all of which pertained to the Activator: Of the 55 articles, 13 were eliminated from the final study. Of the 42 remaining articles, 6 were rated as class 1 evidence; 11 were rated as class 2 evidence and 25 were rated as class 3 evidence. In this article – the first in a series of two -the background and the methods utilized by the MAD committee’s activities are described, as well as the results for the review of the literature on efficacy. Of the 21 articles related to efficacy, five were identified as Class 1 evidence; 4 were identified as Class 2 evidence; and 12 were identified as Class 3. Overall, the committee reached consensus that the MAD procedures using the Activator were as effective as manual (HVLA) procedures in producing clinical benefit and biological change. A minority report was also written, arguing that there was not enough evidence to support or refute the efficacy of MAD’s.
J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2004 Mar;48(1):74-108. [PMID:17549220]
Author information: Taylor SH, Arnold ND, Biggs L, Colloca CJ, Mierau DR, Symons BP, Triano JJ.
Free PMC Article
In a previous article, the author reported on the recommendations gathered from student projects between 1996 and 1999 investigating their preferences for including certain chiropractic Name technique systems into the curriculum at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC). These results were found to be congruent with the professional treatment technique used by Canadian chiropractors. This article reports on the data obtained during the 2000 and 2001 academic years, comparing these results to those previously gathered. In addition, because of the implementation of a new curriculum during this time period, there was unique opportunity to observe whether or not student perceptions differed between those students in the `old’ curricular program, and those students in the `new’ curricular program. The results gathered indicate that students in both curricular programs show an interest in learning Thompson Terminal Point, Activator Methods, Gonstead, and Active Release Therapy techniques in the core curriculum, as an elective, or during continuing educational programs provided by the college. Students continue to show less interest in learning CranioSacral Therapy, SacroOccipital Technique, Logan Basic, Applied Kinesiology and Chiropractic BioPhysics. Over time, student interest has moved away from Palmer HIO and other upper cervical techniques, and students show a declining interest in being offered instruction in either Network Spinal Analysis or Torque Release Techniques. Since these findings reflect the practice activities of Canadian chiropractors they may have implications not only towards pedagogical decision-making processes at CMCC, but they may also influence professional standards of care.
J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2002 Dec; 46(4): 241–256. [PMC2505021]
Author information:Brain J Gleberzon. Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, 1900 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4G 3E6.
Free PMC Article
A review of the Activator Methods chiropractic technique (AMCT) and Activator adjusting instrument (AAI) is presented. History and development of the technique and its evidence basis and safety issues are discussed.
Activator history and associated body of research literature on both the technique and the instrument are critically reviewed. Included are basic science research in biomechanics, neurophysiology, and clinical research in AMCT analysis reliability, case studies, prospective cohorts, randomized group clinical outcomes, and comparisons to hands-only treatments.
AMCT and the AAI represent a system and mode of delivery based on rational and empirical evidence that continues to be informed by an active and growing body of clinical research. In comparison to other techniques, AMCT appears equivalent to various hands-on approaches, but with less physical demand on the doctor of chiropractic. As with all spinal manipulative and other therapies, risks of adverse effects exist, but appear to be minimized due to force and velocity characteristics of the AAI. Needs for future research directions are also discussed.
Top Clin Chiropr 2002; 9(3): 30–43.
Author information: Fuhr AW, Menke MM. Activator Methods International, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Download the Full paper here(PDF)