Chiropractors in Australia will not be able to perform spinal manipulation on children under the age of two once more, following health concerns from doctors and politicians.

But what is the spinal treatment at the centre of the controversy? Does it work? Is there evidence of harm?

We’re a team of researchers who specialise in evidence-based musculoskeletal health. I (Matt) am a registered chiropractor, Joshua is a registered physiotherapist and Giovanni trained as a physiotherapist.

Here’s what the evidence says.

Remind me, how did this all come about?

A Melbourne-based chiropractor posted a video on social media in 2018 using a spring-loaded device (known as the Activator) to manipulate the spine of a two-week-old baby suspended upside down by the ankles.

The video sparked widespread concerns among the public, medical associations and politicians. It prompted a ban on the procedure in young children. The Victorian health minister commissioned Safer Care Victoria to conduct an independent review of spinal manipulation techniques on children.

Recently, the Chiropractic Board of Australia reinstated chiropractors’ authorisation to perform spinal manipulation on babies under two years old. But this week, it backflipped, following heavy criticism from medical associations and politicians.

What is spinal manipulation?

Spinal manipulation is a treatment used by chiropractors and other health professionals such as doctors, osteopaths and physiotherapists.

It is an umbrella term that includes popular “back cracking” techniques.

It also includes more gentle forms of treatment, such as massage or joint mobilisations. These involve applying pressure to joints without generating a “cracking” sound.

Does spinal manipulation in babies work?

Several international guidelines for health-care professionals recommend spinal manipulation to treat adults with conditions such as back pain and headache as there is an abundance of evidence on the topic. For example, spinal manipulation for back pain is supported by data from nearly 10,000 adults.

For children, it’s a different story. Safer Care Victoria’s 2019 review of spinal manipulation found very few studies testing whether this treatment was safe and effective in children.

Studies were generally small and were of poor quality. Some of those small, poor-quality studies, suggest spinal manipulation provides a very small benefit for back pain, colic and potentially bedwetting – some common reasons for parents to take their child to see a chiropractor. But overall, the review found the overall body of evidence was very poor.

However, for most other children’s conditions chiropractors treat – such as headache, asthma, otitis media (a type of ear infection), cerebral palsy, hyperactivity and torticollis (“twisted neck”) – there did not appear to be a benefit.

The number of studies investigating the effectiveness of spinal manipulation on babies under two years of age was even smaller.

There was one high-quality study and two small, poor quality studies. These did not show an appreciable benefit of spinal manipulation on colic, otitis media with effusion (known as glue ear) or twisted neck in babies.

Is spinal manipulation on babies safe?

In terms of safety, most studies in the review found serious complications were extremely rare. The review noted one baby or child dying (a report from Germany in 2001 after spinal manipulation by a physiotherapist). The most common complications were mild in nature such as increased crying and soreness.

However, because studies were very small, they cannot tell us anything about the safety of spinal manipulation in a reliable way. Studies that are designed to properly investigate if a treatment is safe typically include thousands of patients. And these studies have not yet been done.

Why do people see chiropractors?

Safer Care Victoria also conducted surveys with more than 20,000 people living in Australia who had taken their children under 12 years old to a chiropractor in the past ten years.

Nearly three-quarters said that was for treatment of a child aged two years or younger.

Nearly all people surveyed reported a positive experience when they took their child to a chiropractor and reported that their child’s condition improved with chiropractic care. Only a small number of people (0.3%) reported a negative experience, and this was mostly related to cost of treatment, lack of improvement in their child’s condition, excessive use of x-rays, and perceived pressure to avoid medications.

Many of the respondents had also consulted their GP or maternity/child health nurse.

What now for spinal manipulation in children?

At the request of state and federal ministers, the Chiropractic Board of Australia confirmed that spinal manipulation on babies under two years old will continue to be banned until it discusses the issue further with health ministers.

Many chiropractors believe this is unfair, especially considering the strong consumer support for chiropractic care outlined in the Safer Care Victoria report, and the rarity of serious reported harms in children.

Others believe that in the absence of evidence of benefit and uncertainty around whether spinal manipulation is safe in children and babies, the precautionary principle should apply and children and babies should not receive spinal manipulation.

Ultimately, high quality research is urgently needed to better understand whether spinal manipulation is beneficial for the range of conditions chiropractors provide it for, and whether the benefit outweighs the extremely small chance of a serious complication.

This will help parents make an informed choice about health care for their child.

Matt Fernandez, Senior lecturer and researcher in chiropractic, CQUniversity Australia; Giovanni E. Ferreira, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, Institute of Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, and Joshua Zadro, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Fluoride is a common natural element found in water, soil, rocks and food. For the past several decades, fluoride has also been a cornerstone of dentistry and public health, owing to its ability to protect against tooth decay.

Water fluoridation is a population-based program where a precise, small amount of fluoride is added to public drinking water systems. Water fluoridation began in Australia in the 1950s. Today more than 90% of Australia’s population has access to fluoridated tap water.

But a recently published review found higher fluoride exposure is linked to lower intelligence quotient (IQ) in children. So how can we interpret the results?

Much of the data analysed in this review is poor quality. Overall, the findings don’t give us reason to be concerned about the fluoride levels in our water supplies.

Not a new controversy

Tooth decay (also known as caries or cavities) can have negative effects on dental health, overall health and quality of life. Fluoride strengthens our teeth, making them more resistant to decay. There is scientific consensus water fluoridation is a safe, effective and equitable way to improve oral health.

Nonetheless, water fluoridation has historically been somewhat controversial.

A potential link between fluoride and IQ (and cognitive function more broadly) has been a contentious topic for more than a decade. This started with reports from studies in China and India.

But it’s important to note these studies were limited by poor methodology, and water in these countries had high levels of natural fluoride when the studies were conducted – many times higher than the levels recommended for water fluoridation programs. Also, the studies did not control for other contaminants in the water supply.

Recent reviews focusing on the level of fluoride used in water fluoridation have concluded fluoride is not linked to lower IQ.

Despite this, some have continued to raise concerns. The United States National Toxicology Program conducted a review of the potential link. However, this review did not pass the quality assessment by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine due to significant limitations in the conduct of the review.

The authors followed through with their study and published it as an independent publication in the journal JAMA Paediatrics last week. This is the study which has been generating media attention in recent days.

What the study did

This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis, where the researchers evaluated 74 studies from different parts of the world.

A total of 52 studies were rated as having a high risk of bias, and 64 were cross-sectional studies, which often can’t provide evidence of causal relationship.

Most of the studies were conducted in developing countries, such as China (45), India (12), Iran (4), Mexico (4) and Pakistan (2). Only a few studies were conducted in developed countries with established public water systems, where regular monitoring and treatment of drinking water ensures it’s free from contaminants.

The vast majority of studies were conducted in populations with high to very high levels of natural fluoride and without water fluoridation programs, where fluoride levels are controlled within recommended levels.

The study concluded there was an inverse association between fluoride levels and IQ in children. This means those children who had a higher intake of fluoride had lower IQ scores than their counterparts.

Limitations to consider

While this review combined many studies, there are several limitations that cast serious doubt over its conclusion. Scientists immediately raised concerns about the quality of the review, including in a linked editorial published in JAMA.

The low quality of the majority of included studies is a major concern, rendering the quality of the review equally low. Importantly, most studies were not relevant to the recommended levels of fluoride in water fluoridation programs.

Several included studies from countries with controlled public water systems (Canada, New Zealand, Taiwan) showed no negative effects. Other recent studies from comparable populations (such as Spain and Denmark) also have not shown any negative effect of fluoride on IQ, but they were not included in the meta-analysis.

For context, the review found there was no significant association with IQ when fluoride was measured at less than 1.5mg per litre in water. In Australia, the recommended levels of fluoride in public water supplies range from 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L.

Also, the primary outcome, IQ score, is difficult to collect. Most included studies varied widely on the methods used to collect IQ data and did not specify their focus on ensuring reliable and consistent IQ data. Though this is a challenge in most research on this topic, the significant variations between studies in this review raise further doubts about the combined results.

No cause for alarm

Although no Australian studies were included in the review, Australia has its own studies investigating a potential link between fluoride exposure in early childhood and child development.

I’ve been involved in population-based longitudinal studies investigating a link between fluoride and child behavioural development and executive functioning and between fluoride and IQ. The IQ data in the second study were collected by qualified, trained psychologists – and calibrated against a senior psychologist – to ensure quality and consistency. Both studies have provided strong evidence fluoride exposure in Australia does not negatively impact child development.

This new review is not a reason to be concerned about fluoride levels in Australia and other developed countries with water fluoridation programs. Fluoride remains important in maintaining the public’s dental health, particularly that of more vulnerable groups.

That said, high and uncontrolled levels of fluoride in water supplies in less developed countries warrant attention. There are programs underway in a range of countries to reduce natural fluoride to the recommended level.

Loc Do, Professor of Dental Public Health, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.