| For best results switch to Advanced Search. |
Article Detail |
Return to Search Results | ||||||||||||
| ID | 27668 | ||||||||||||
| Title | Trustworthiness and EBM [editorial] | ||||||||||||
| URL | https://www.apcj.net/site_files/4725/upload_files/McKibbinEBM.pdf?dl=1 | ||||||||||||
| Journal | Asia-Pac Chiropr J. 2023 Jul-Sep;4(1):3 | ||||||||||||
| Author(s) | |||||||||||||
| Subject(s) | |||||||||||||
| Peer Review | No | ||||||||||||
| Publication Type | Editorial | ||||||||||||
| Abstract/Notes | Narrative abstract: The Type M and Type O distinctions are artificial and were imposed on the Chiropractic profession by political medicine during the 1978/79 New Zealand Commission of Inquiry. The record is within the ‘Report of the Commission of Inquiry presented to the House of Representatives by Command of His Excellency the Governor-General’. Along with rejecting this imposition Chiropractors must also continue to question the imposed mantra of Evidence Based Medicine onto Chiropractic as being solely indicative of the trustworthiness of contemporary practice. The evidence for medicine shows only a very small percentage of medical decisions are actually based on any evidence at all. In this regard chiropractors must remain questioning of what are increasingly shown to be weak evidential methodologies. Author keywords: Chiropractic - EBM - Type O - Type M - Evidence This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; click on the above link for free full text. Online access only.
|
||||||||||||
| |
|||||||||||||
|
Text (Citation)
Tagged (Export)
Excel
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Follow us on: 
