Talk:Veterinary chiropractic

858:. Yes, primary sources are occasionally allowed, but not very often and they should already be mentioned in secondary sources, and for MEDRS matters they should be literature reviews, not single studies. Knowledge is not supposed to be the first place that mentions a study. That makes Knowledge the publisher of OR and the secondary source, and that's not okay at all. We're not supposed to do that. If a primary study is mentioned in a secondary MEDRS, then we can ALSO include the primary study. Until then recentism should be avoided, since the large majority of primary studies often don't pan out well in the future anyway. Only those that are good enough and accurate enough to stand the test of time should be mentioned here, and whether they pass is proven by whether they are mentioned in secondary sources. -- 780:. First, I moved the only secondary source in the paragraph to the beginning, as it holds the most weight. I then re-worded the text describing the primary studies, as the way it was written was too 'conclusive' for primary sources. The results of one primary study can suggest trends or outcomes, but can conclude nothing until it is replicated independently. Anyways, I am ok with including the primary sources, as MEDRS does not 'forbid' it, and there is a paucity of systematic reviews on the topic atm, so I think it is informitive and the best available data so far. I have just softened the laguage. Lastly, I am now going to look into the one source that you removed DVMt, if it is a good source then I am going to re-insert it. 2133:"Joint mobilization and manipulation provide important diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for addressing musculoskeletal issues in veterinary medicine. Soft tissue and joint mobilization are used to assess the quality and quantity of joint range of motion and as a primary means of treating musculoskeletal disorders. Spinal manipulation was shown to be effective for reducing pain, improving flexibility, reducing muscle tone, and improving symmetry of spinal kinematics in horses. Because of potential misuse and safety issues, joint mobilization and manipulative therapies should be provided only by specially trained veterinarians or licensed human manual therapists." 1125:

that there is currently insufficient evidence to make specific recommendations about the use of chiropractic intervention for dogs and cats. A recent survey has suggested that the use of allied health therapies, including animal chiropractic, for the treatment of competition race horses is widespread and many riders or trainers perceived it to be beneficial. One study has suggested that chiropractic manipulation might increase pain thresholds in healthy horses. Another small study has suggested that chiropractic manipulation can cause changes in thoracolumbar and pelvic kinematics in healthy horses, however, it is not yet known if these changes are beneficial.

874:

first place that mentions a study, it's the original journal that it was published in. So long that no widespread conclusions are drawn and the primary source and has appropriate relative weight. There is no OR research here and the study that was added is nothing that I personally published nor did I draw "original" conclusions or tried to link it to another study to come up a different conclusion or hypothesis that was not already stated in the original source. I disagree with your interpretation BullRangife, so does Puhlaa who made a reasonable change in the article to reflect this matter.

1422:. As I state above, I read DVMt's edits, removed any policy violations I saw (emphasized secondary sources and qualified the primary sources) and replaced the guidelines that I thought were appropriate, while trying to maintain some of the efforts of DVMt, who had put some work in to finding real sources. If other editors are still not satisfied I am open to suggestions, but mass reversion of someones efforts is unhelpful for many reasons. Thus, I was trying to find a middle ground, especially because the sources are not garbage, just not the highest quality. 677:

reversion of BullRangifer, and discuss each change here. The first, the addition of a source, will likely be unchallenged as long as there are no higher quality sources that say something contradictory. It looks like you have value to add here, you just have to 'conform' a bit to the wikipedia culture. If not, you are likely to get banned from contributing, which would be unfortunate, as there are not enough editors willing to struggle through the discussion required to make good and significant changes to these controversial articles.

1447:

legal and scientific citations, were quickly "undone" by DVMt, a self professed "skeptic" (see DVMt's page) Although I do agree that some of the information I added could be left out until more citations are added, the majority is pure history and fact. But come on, why let facts get in the way of a skeptic who professes to be inspired by evidence based discussions. So I ask; What is Objective? Why are so many that profess to be "evidence-based" so afraid of the evidence?

272: 251: 1079:

real issue here is whether the 3 primary sources that are given brief mention at the end of the efficacy paragraph are in violation of policy. I believe that we have put them in context sufficiently and have given them appropriate weight (ie: less than that of the secondary sources). I fail to see a good arguement for why they must be excluded entirely, they are interesting, just inconclusive (and labelled as inconclusive in the article so there is no mistake).

429: 408: 1392:

topics, and I'd trust your thoroughness in weighing the advantages of having something to hang some text on against the disadvantage that primary sources often get refuted or discarded by later secondary reviews. You've spotted by now that refs 21 & 25 are the same, I guess? Anyway, my view about attributing guidelines is that the name of the authors is only a click away, but I agree that knowing it's the

358: 340: 714:

made a point of individually examining each of your edits here in this article (something that would be easier in future with prior discussion for each item on the talk page). I see nothing wrong with your edits here, the sources you added are good quality and your text accuarately summarizes those sources IMO. I personally am satisfied with your edits here; I guess we will see what other editors think.

619:

doctors to write a referral for a glorified massage or muscle stretching. It's not a permit for another "credibility enhancing" x-ray view to lead a victim on to a lifetime of adjustments for a completely made up affliction or "subluxation." An MD should beware of creating a Pied Piperesque following, certain to be included in said chiro's advertising material for the rest of their business career.

571: 220: 693:

we can remove or rewrite sections. I am aware of 3RR and will not go down that route, but reversions without any discussion, especially after they have been there for a week is not good practice and according to my knowledge can result in disciplinary measures if need be. I strive to be a good contributor and will work with editors to ensure that our mutual goal of improving wikipedia is met.

535: 501: 743:

additions to "controversial" articles I will also go on the talk page and explain my edits so that other editors can gain a better understanding of the content of the edit. I suspected that my edits and sources were done in a NPOV manner and that the edits reflected the material accurately. Your opinion on my edits at vertebral subluxation would also be appreciated.

1019:"A recent review investigated the role of manual therapies in equine pain management and found limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in reducing pain and muscle hypertonicity in horses. The authors concluded that the efficacy of specific equine manual therapy techniques is unknown."{ref Haussler (2010)} 2076: 819:

evidence. I would think that wordings such as "preliminary evidence" or "emergent" or some descriptive language in that manner would be a consistent way of dealing with this issue as medical jargon such "a primary study has suggested" doesn't really translate well the common reader. Does WPMEDRS follow Sackett's levels of evidence (

976:

If you insist on including them, I won't fight it, but it is only another example of the tendency we've always fought against here, and that is that alternative medicine, fringe, and chiropractic subjects tend to promote and depend on poor quality research and sources. This is just another example of

1418:

Thanks RexxS, I missed the replication of the guidelines...fixed now! I am not opposed to primary sources as you and BR are, as long as they are qualified and not refuting better sources. This is especially the case, as you mention, in specific 'niche topics'. Anyways, it doesnt matter to me here, I

1124:

There is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization for equine pain management and the efficacy of specific equine manual therapy techniques is unknown. The American Animal Hospital Association and the American Association of Feline Practitioners have stated

892:

I agree with DVMt here. I feel that I have chewed down DVMt's original edits sufficiently from their original form to allow their inclusions, and I feel they improve the article. BullRangifer, you are making too little of primary sources IMO; primary sources are allowed provided they dont contradict

713:

DVMt, One week with no reversion of your edits is not the same as consensus for your edits. We all have real lives, and this is a hobby, sometimes editors only check in once a week or less. Moreover, it may not be your edits that are controversial, but the topic itself is controversial. That said, I

1047:

tells us to assert, not attribute, undisputed conclusions. The effect of the heavy attribution in that section is to indirectly cast doubt on Haussler's findings. Why? Is it coincidental that this occurs where the text is critical and not where the text is uncritical? Those two cases are merely the

1008:

The lead states "Proposed benefits of animal chiropractic include, enhanced performance, function and quality of life" - where does that come from? I don't see it in the body of the article and I can't see who was doing the proposing. Is it such a well-supported fact that it belongs in the lead? If

692:

I was not under the impression that my edits were controversial as they had been in place for well over a week and the article itself is not tagged as controversial or NPOV. I'm going to keep the article as if for now and specific challenges to the added content can be discussed here at which time

656:

While continuing to read this, for entertainment purposes only...I just wonder how the "power" of the human chiropractor magically transfers to some innate ability to adjust a horses spine? What next? Elephant? Whale? We've read tales of chiropractors "adjusting" infant spines. How much do you move

618:

The arguments pro are entertaining, but it's still the continued endeavors of a "made-up" medical discipline. Conventional (truthful, evidence based, non-holistic) medicine was successfully sued by a group of chiropractors, but it didn't give their cause more credibility. It's simply allowed "real"

1836:

Usage does not mean effective. I am suggesting that we need to note the range of usage as a way of describing all of, what this is, how it is used, and how effective it is so that we have a balanced view of the topic area. I have looked at only a few sources at this point and am not familiar with

1078:

Hey RexxS, thanks for the input. Can we please keep it to the paragraph at hand (I have pasted it below)....any problems in the LEAD can be discussed in a new thread. With regard to your comment, I agree, attribution for the systematic review is not needed, I will remove it. That said however, the

676:

DVMt, again there are too many changes for another editor (like me) to sift-through. It looks like your first change, the addition of a needed source to the history section, is a good contribution. However, it is mixed up now with all the reverts/edits/etc. I would suggest that you revert your own

1391:

Hi Puhlaa, it's been a while, but I haven't shifted my opinions much. You know that I'd take out every primary medical source if it were up to me, on the grounds that if the mainstream literature hasn't reviewed it, it's not worth quoting in Knowledge. But I accept that exceptions exist for niche

1446:

I recently attempted to "spruce-up" the vet chiro page. The grammer, spelling, capitalization, etc. is ridiculous. I also edited and made several corrections to the history of animal chiropractic. I should know, I have been there from the beginning. See my page. My edits, although many with

897:

primary sources included here, one represent a topic where no published secondary source exists (cats and dog; the closest is a self-published statement by the vet asssociation that says not enough evidence exists yet to make recommendations, but there is no systematic review that describes what

873:

As per MEDRS, as I understand it, can use primary sources when there are no available secondary or tertiary sources. Puhlaa, in my opinion, explained this very well in his post above. The sources that were recently added are in fact from a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal. Also, WP isn't the

622:

I've had two friends who were chiro's. From hanging out with me, I have, hopefully, constrained their activities and caused them to be more critical of their convention going associates to admire practice building advertising and patient recruitment and retention devices. Lobby cards are used to

922:

There is very little research done on this topic and a lack of available secondary sources, thus the primary sources become the best available information to date. The idea here is to inform readers with the best available info. I feel that we have now done so, while maintaining the appropriate

742:

Puhlaa, thank you for your feedback. I understand we are all busy IRL, and our contributions here are voluntary. That being said, erasing a recent contribution of an editor without specifically explaining the problem is a big reason why new editors leave Knowledge. That being said, if I make

818:

Thank you for your feedback once again, it has been constructive and I understand the logic behind using secondary sources at the beginning of paragraphs and its relative value in weight. I see your point regarding primary studies and how editors might jump to conclusions based on preliminary

962:

of them, while the other two are so inconclusive as to be embarrassing to even mention here. We don't usually include inconclusive studies, even in the absence of any other research on the subject (there are no secondary sources for them to contradict!). We normally wait until there are more

1936:

This Task Force has not found sufficient, reliable, noncontradictory evidence for the use of chiropractic care for pain management in veterinary medicine at this time. That said, chiropractic care has many well-defined applications in human medicine that have been supported through reliable

1093:

What is your thought on attribution for the guidelines? I feel that naming the body that produced the guidelines (The American Animal Hospital Association and the American Association of Feline Practitioners) is valuable, so I prefer to maintain the attribution here. What are your

626:

I truly appreciate DVMt, BullRanfifeer, and Puhlaa's additions. We are all self-critiqued here, and sticking to the topic at hand has been well-done. Hell, it's chiropractic. Have fun with it. But when you see something legitimately wrong with someone, get some real help from a

1995:

If that is the only content in the source on chiropractic and as I said I don't see anything else (I posted the content form the source above) although, I could have missed it, then I agree the source does not verify the content in the article and the content should be

583: 657:

them? And do you know how much you've moved a 300 pound adult males spine without an audible click or pop? And do your fingers palpate through the muscle mass of a Clydesdale with adequate pinpoint precision? Please understand...this is just horse___.

1511:, there is quite a bit of information and some sources that can be freely used to enhance this article. The attribution is saved in the redirect history, so there's no problem there. I'd do it myself it I knew anything about the subject. — 1004:

The article does appear to me to be too willing to accept unsubstantiated claims that promote the field, and far too reluctant to give adequate weight to sources that are critical. I'll give a couple of examples to try to illustrate what I

1038:"There is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in reducing pain and muscle hypertonicity in horses. The efficacy of specific equine manual therapy techniques is unknown."{ref Haussler (2010)} 1872:

The heading "Usage" is really grating on me for some reason. It would be more consistent with other similar articles if it was headed "Practice" but we already have "Clinical practice" so perhaps the content should be in that section.

153: 1343:

Gomez Alvarez CB, L'ami JJ, Moffat D, Back W, van Weeren PR (2008). "Effect of chiropractic manipulations on the kinematics of back and limbs in horses with clinically diagnosed back problems".

1035:

it needs to be a secondary source to support its conclusions on efficacy. So the real question is, why is it attributed as if it were disputed by another reliable source? Why doesn't it say:

1295:

Sullivan KA, Hill AE, Haussler KK (2008). "The effects of chiropractic, massage and phenylbutazone on spinal mechanical nociceptive thresholds in horses without clinical signs".

147: 2210: 322: 312: 2152:

Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract. 2016 Apr;32(1):87-101. doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2015.12.003. That's a pretty reliable source, does someone have a link to the full text version?

2220: 898:

research actually does exist); the other primary source is with horses and biomechanics (also not yet reviewed), and the results are strongly qualified and put in context

2215: 2205: 1450:

Many of the statements on the present vet chiro page are simply not true. But they do provide an agenda for confusing the public and the profession. So again I ask,

1377: 1329: 1281: 627:

nurse/doctor/veterinarian, ambulance driver, or paramedic. Look outside the box. You're not saving lives by cracking bones. You're collecting fees for cracking bones.

374: 44: 1956:

As well, the source is a guideline specific to dogs and cats so the statement over reaches the source assuming the content is actually based on the source cited.(

1602: 1598: 1584: 288: 2230: 1972: 479: 469: 1048:

most obvious examples of a common problem that appears several times in the text and consequently I think the article still has a way to go to reach NPOV. --

2235: 2225: 365: 345: 79: 1419:

have no vested interest in animal care. I was just trying to be the middle ground in a disagreement between DVMt and BR after being contacted for help

2041: 623:

sucker in other ailments and "get them while they're young." I really get mad at pregnancy well checks through chiro's...STAY AWAY from my patients.

595: 279: 256: 1031:. Is that a secondary source? It certainly looks like one, as it "explores the scientific literature for evidence of efficacy, safety, ..." and per 1043:

Do you see my problem? When two reliable sources disagree, we attribute them so that they are seen to be the conclusions of two differing sources.

630:

AND!!!...don't touch my animals. They are devoid of the reasoning required to make an intelligent choice. This is so sad, in the name of a dollar.

445: 1400:

obviously doesn't. It's the sort of exception that "proves the rule" about attribution. You don't need me to say that exceptions are meant to be

1255:

Meredith K, Bolwell CF, Rogers CW, Gee EK (2011). "The use of allied health therapies on competition horses in the North Island of New Zealand".

1469: 190: 1404:- do your best to make sure that the vast majority of sources indisputably meet MEDRS, and you'll know you've got the article right. Cheers -- 823:)? This would be a nice easy way to classify sources when discussing the weight it deserves in articles. Your guidance is much appreciated! 2138: 1713:

It is in the article. See "A 2011 survey in New Zealand found that use of animal chiropractic on competition race horses is widespread." See

85: 1918:

I can't seem to find content in the source for this cite (below). Line three of the article. Could someone post the page number. Thank you.

977:

dumbing down an article. Too bad. As a very experienced manual therapist I would hide my head in shame over this, but then I'm not a DC.

1562: 2186: 555: 521: 436: 413: 168: 1801:

No. But the article should include content that indicates how wide usage is. It doesn't do that sufficiently from what I can see. (

135: 1787: 99: 30: 104: 20: 1922:

Veterinary chiropractic methods can potentially cause injury through the use of inappropriate technique or excessive force.

633:

I just have a major, major problem with this entire chiropractic fraud in and of itself. "Doctor." My gawd...it's fraud.

2171:

I was wondering if the page layout would make more sense having history first and then diving further into the practice?

74: 854:

here. By using primary sources which are not directly mentioned in the secondary sources, we are violating the spirit of

129: 231: 1791: 65: 125: 2042:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080417052553/http://www.avma.org:80/advocacy/state/issues/la_cavm_state_reg_models.asp

1465: 373:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

185: 2142: 2001: 1961: 1944: 1842: 1806: 1700:

The point is that it is very widespread, particularly in the horse racing world. Removing it is not appropriate.

1601:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

199: 662: 640: 175: 219: 2033: 2025: 1714: 1534: 990:

I think I'll drop a note over where the experts on MEDRS lurk and see if we can get some third opinions. --

547: 513: 109: 24: 1461: 2182: 995: 911:

The specific topic of one of the primary studies have not been systematically reviewed yet (cats and dogs)

863: 2045: 914:

The results of primary sources are put in a context that allows readers to understand their limited value

2108: 2088:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1640: 1620:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1608: 1516: 1371: 1323: 1275: 1200: 1164: 237: 2032:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2174: 2066: 1997: 1957: 1940: 1838: 1802: 1457: 646: 370: 141: 1563:

https://web.archive.org/20080520020423/http://www.avma.org:80/press/releases/070714_comp_alt_med.asp

2158: 1984: 1891: 1861: 1825: 1783: 1755: 1726: 1706: 1685: 1668: 1501: 658: 636: 284: 161: 55: 666: 650: 558:

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

524:

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

444:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

287:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

603: 574:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

204: 70: 1605:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2089: 1621: 1191:

The American Animal Hospital Association and the American Association of Feline Practitioners.

2178: 1544: 1360: 1312: 1264: 1150: 1025: 991: 859: 587: 51: 945:

I admire your attempt at making this as NPOV as possible, and the weight issue is better now.

2104: 1636: 1512: 1427: 1352: 1304: 1099: 1084: 928: 851: 785: 719: 682: 201: 2126:

A new review has been published that should make a good source for this wikipedia article.

2096: 1628: 1552: 1409: 1241: 1225: 1213: 1177: 1053: 1032: 271: 250: 1816:

Popularity does not equal effectiveness. It is difficult to find many sources for usage.

1566: 1394:

American Animal Hospital Association and the American Association of Feline Practitioners

1975:

has very little information on chiropractic care. It does not verify the current claim.

2153: 1976: 1883: 1853: 1817: 1775: 1750: 1718: 1701: 1677: 1663: 1659: 1587:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1488: 879: 828: 748: 698: 2095:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1627:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2199: 1044: 855: 599: 2190: 2160: 2146: 2116: 2005: 1990: 1965: 1948: 1897: 1877: 1867: 1846: 1831: 1810: 1795: 1757: 1732: 1708: 1691: 1670: 1648: 1520: 1492: 1473: 1431: 1413: 1103: 1088: 1057: 999: 958:

I've looked at the three research sources and could grudgingly be forced to accept

932: 883: 867: 832: 789: 752: 723: 702: 686: 607: 441: 428: 407: 203: 1594: 1423: 1192: 1095: 1080: 924: 781: 715: 678: 570: 357: 339: 2135: 1662:, not the editor's user page (unless it's an issue across multiple articles. 1593:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1509:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Animal_chiropractic&oldid=604238901

1483:

Why don't you add your proposal here to the talk page and we can go over it.

1405: 1138: 1049: 959: 820: 1356: 1308: 1484: 917:

No primary sources are included that contradict any of the secondary sources

875: 824: 744: 694: 1363: 1315: 1267: 1153: 1028: 1549:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

1507:

The above article is a redirect to this article, but in its history, at

963:

conclusive results. To do otherwise violates the spirit of MEDRS and OR.

2083:

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

2046:

http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/la_cavm_state_reg_models.asp

1557:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

923:

context for each of the different levels of evidence presented.

1774:

How much something is used does not say whether or not it works

529: 495: 213: 205: 15: 2051:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1572:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1396:

does serve the purpose of providing context that a cite to

1342: 2036:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1928:

I do see this below under Chiropractic care same source

1533:

I have just added archive links to one external link on

1139:"The role of manual therapies in equine pain management" 905:

The sources and edits all comply with wikipedia policy:

900:(ie: "dont know if the observed changes are beneficial") 2029: 1538: 1508: 1420: 1119:

Paragraph under question that contains primary sources:

778: 551: 542: 517: 508: 1567:

http://avma.org/press/releases/070714_comp_alt_med.asp

160: 565:

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

440:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 369:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 283:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1597:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1852:I added "It has become a fast developing area." 1193:"Pain Management Guidelines for Dogs & Cats" 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1583:This message was posted before February 2018. 174: 8: 2136:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27012508 1658:"Take to talk" means the article talk page, 1376:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 1328:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 1280:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 2211:Mid-importance Veterinary medicine articles 908:Secondary sources are given the most weight 821:http://www.eboncall.org/content/levels.html 217: 2024:I have just modified one external link on 533: 499: 402: 383:Knowledge:WikiProject Alternative medicine 334: 245: 2221:Start-Class Alternative medicine articles 596:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment 386:Template:WikiProject Alternative medicine 297:Knowledge:WikiProject Veterinary medicine 2216:WikiProject Veterinary medicine articles 2206:Start-Class Veterinary medicine articles 540:Text and/or other creative content from 506:Text and/or other creative content from 300:Template:WikiProject Veterinary medicine 1129: 594:Above undated message substituted from 404: 336: 247: 1369: 1321: 1273: 1237: 1233: 1221: 1209: 1198: 1173: 1162: 2063:to let others know (documentation at 1837:the area so not sure what there is. ( 7: 2231:Mid-importance Chiropractic articles 1024:This is sourced to Haussler (2010), 893:available secondary sources. Of the 434:This article is within the scope of 363:This article is within the scope of 277:This article is within the scope of 236:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 1208:Cite has empty unknown parameter: 579: 575: 454:Knowledge:WikiProject Chiropractic 14: 2236:WikiProject Chiropractic articles 2226:Start-Class Chiropractic articles 2028:. Please take a moment to review 1537:. Please take a moment to review 457:Template:WikiProject Chiropractic 2074: 582:. Further details are available 569: 427: 406: 366:WikiProject Alternative medicine 356: 338: 270: 249: 218: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 777:I have made some modifications 474:This article has been rated as 317:This article has been rated as 280:WikiProject Veterinary medicine 1143:Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1: 1715:Veterinary chiropractic#Scope 1676:Usage is not about efficacy. 1432:03:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 1414:02:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 1104:02:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 1089:02:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 1058:01:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 1000:20:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 933:19:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 884:18:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 868:18:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 833:05:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 790:20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 753:17:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 724:17:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 703:16:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 687:13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 448:and see a list of open tasks. 389:Alternative medicine articles 377:and see a list of open tasks. 291:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 2191:16:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC) 1649:17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC) 651:07:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC) 613: 608:12:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC) 303:Veterinary medicine articles 850:I still see a problem with 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 2252: 2021:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1758:17:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 1749:I see that now. Thanks. 1614:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1555:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 1530:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1521:21:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 1493:18:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC) 1474:18:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC) 480:project's importance scale 323:project's importance scale 2161:05:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC) 2147:01:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 2117:01:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 2006:17:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1991:17:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1966:16:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1949:16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1898:01:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 1878:23:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1868:23:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1847:19:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1832:19:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1811:18:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1796:10:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1733:01:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC) 1709:05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC) 1692:06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1671:06:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1157:. Retrieved Nov. 20, 2011 546:was copied or moved into 512:was copied or moved into 473: 422: 351: 316: 265: 244: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 1357:10.2746/042516408X250292 1309:10.2746/042516407X240456 614:Again, it's Chiropractic 437:WikiProject Chiropractic 2026:Veterinary chiropractic 2017:External links modified 1535:Veterinary chiropractic 1526:External links modified 667:23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 548:Veterinary chiropractic 514:Veterinary chiropractic 25:Veterinary chiropractic 1220:Cite journal requires 1172:Check date values in: 1009:so, what's the source? 226:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 1137:Haussler, KK (2010). 586:. Student editor(s): 460:Chiropractic articles 100:Neutral point of view 1595:regular verification 1580:to let others know. 1541:. If necessary, add 856:no original research 550:. The former page's 516:. The former page's 380:Alternative medicine 371:Alternative medicine 346:Alternative medicine 105:No original research 2055:parameter below to 1585:After February 2018 1576:parameter below to 1502:Animal chiropractic 556:provide attribution 543:Animal chiropractic 522:provide attribution 294:Veterinary medicine 285:Veterinary medicine 257:Veterinary medicine 2122:New review article 1590:InternetArchiveBot 1452:WHAT IS OBJECTIVE? 1442:What is Objective? 1232:Unknown parameter 584:on the course page 232:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2177:comment added by 2115: 1932:Chiropractic Care 1647: 1615: 1477: 1460:comment added by 562: 561: 528: 527: 494: 493: 490: 489: 486: 485: 401: 400: 397: 396: 333: 332: 329: 328: 212: 211: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2243: 2193: 2156: 2111: 2110:Talk to my owner 2106: 2081: 2078: 2077: 2070: 1987: 1981: 1894: 1888: 1876: 1864: 1858: 1828: 1822: 1780: 1753: 1729: 1723: 1704: 1688: 1682: 1666: 1643: 1642:Talk to my owner 1638: 1613: 1612: 1591: 1556: 1548: 1476: 1462:DrDennisEschbach 1454: 1382: 1381: 1375: 1367: 1340: 1334: 1333: 1327: 1319: 1292: 1286: 1285: 1279: 1271: 1252: 1246: 1245: 1239: 1235: 1229: 1223: 1217: 1211: 1206: 1204: 1196: 1188: 1182: 1181: 1175: 1170: 1168: 1160: 1158: 1134: 1016:section states: 653: 610: 581: 580:16 December 2021 577: 576:3 September 2021 573: 545: 537: 536: 530: 511: 503: 502: 496: 462: 461: 458: 455: 452: 431: 424: 423: 418: 410: 403: 391: 390: 387: 384: 381: 360: 353: 352: 342: 335: 305: 304: 301: 298: 295: 274: 267: 266: 261: 253: 246: 229: 223: 222: 214: 206: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2251: 2250: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2196: 2195: 2172: 2169: 2154: 2139:108.181.201.237 2124: 2114: 2109: 2079: 2075: 2064: 2034:this simple FaQ 2019: 1998:Littleolive oil 1985: 1977: 1958:Littleolive oil 1941:Littleolive oil 1916: 1892: 1884: 1874: 1862: 1854: 1839:Littleolive oil 1826: 1818: 1803:Littleolive oil 1776: 1772: 1751: 1727: 1719: 1702: 1686: 1678: 1664: 1656: 1646: 1641: 1606: 1599:have permission 1589: 1550: 1542: 1528: 1505: 1455: 1444: 1386: 1385: 1368: 1341: 1337: 1320: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1272: 1254: 1253: 1249: 1231: 1219: 1207: 1197: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1171: 1161: 1156: 1136: 1135: 1131: 674: 644: 616: 593: 567: 541: 534: 507: 500: 459: 456: 453: 450: 449: 416: 388: 385: 382: 379: 378: 302: 299: 296: 293: 292: 259: 230:on Knowledge's 227: 208: 207: 202: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2249: 2247: 2239: 2238: 2233: 2228: 2223: 2218: 2213: 2208: 2198: 2197: 2168: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2123: 2120: 2107: 2101: 2100: 2093: 2049: 2048: 2040:Added archive 2018: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 1915: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1771: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1695: 1694: 1655: 1652: 1639: 1633: 1632: 1625: 1570: 1569: 1561:Added archive 1527: 1524: 1504: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1443: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1398:Kevin Haussler 1384: 1383: 1335: 1287: 1263:(3): 123–127. 1247: 1183: 1149:(3): 579–601. 1128: 1127: 1122: 1121: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1091: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1010: 1006: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 938: 937: 936: 935: 920: 919: 918: 915: 912: 909: 903: 887: 886: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 706: 705: 673: 672:Recent Changes 670: 659:Blondesareeasy 649:comment added 637:Blondesareeasy 615: 612: 566: 563: 560: 559: 554:now serves to 538: 526: 525: 520:now serves to 504: 492: 491: 488: 487: 484: 483: 476:Mid-importance 472: 466: 465: 463: 446:the discussion 432: 420: 419: 417:Mid‑importance 411: 399: 398: 395: 394: 392: 375:the discussion 361: 349: 348: 343: 331: 330: 327: 326: 319:Mid-importance 315: 309: 308: 306: 289:the discussion 275: 263: 262: 260:Mid‑importance 254: 242: 241: 235: 224: 210: 209: 200: 198: 197: 194: 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2248: 2237: 2234: 2232: 2229: 2227: 2224: 2222: 2219: 2217: 2214: 2212: 2209: 2207: 2204: 2203: 2201: 2194: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2167:Order of Page 2166: 2162: 2159: 2157: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2137: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2121: 2119: 2118: 2112: 2105: 2098: 2094: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2072: 2068: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2022: 2016: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1988: 1982: 1980: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1934: 1933: 1929: 1926: 1925: 1923: 1919: 1913: 1899: 1895: 1889: 1887: 1882:I merged it. 1881: 1880: 1879: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1865: 1859: 1857: 1851: 1850: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1823: 1821: 1815: 1814: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1779: 1769: 1759: 1756: 1754: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1734: 1730: 1724: 1722: 1716: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1707: 1705: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1689: 1683: 1681: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1669: 1667: 1661: 1653: 1651: 1650: 1644: 1637: 1630: 1626: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1610: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1586: 1581: 1579: 1575: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1554: 1546: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1525: 1523: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1503: 1500: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1453: 1448: 1441: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1379: 1373: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1339: 1336: 1331: 1325: 1317: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1291: 1288: 1283: 1277: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1251: 1248: 1243: 1238:|access-date= 1234:|access date= 1227: 1215: 1202: 1194: 1187: 1184: 1179: 1166: 1155: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1133: 1130: 1126: 1120: 1117: 1116: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1092: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1046: 1042: 1037: 1036: 1034: 1030: 1027: 1023: 1018: 1017: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1002: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 961: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 934: 930: 926: 921: 916: 913: 910: 907: 906: 904: 901: 896: 891: 890: 889: 888: 885: 881: 877: 872: 871: 870: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 834: 830: 826: 822: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 791: 787: 783: 779: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 754: 750: 746: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 725: 721: 717: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 704: 700: 696: 691: 690: 689: 688: 684: 680: 671: 669: 668: 664: 660: 654: 652: 648: 642: 638: 634: 631: 628: 624: 620: 611: 609: 605: 601: 597: 591: 589: 585: 572: 564: 557: 553: 549: 544: 539: 532: 531: 523: 519: 515: 510: 505: 498: 497: 481: 477: 471: 468: 467: 464: 447: 443: 439: 438: 433: 430: 426: 425: 421: 415: 412: 409: 405: 393: 376: 372: 368: 367: 362: 359: 355: 354: 350: 347: 344: 341: 337: 324: 320: 314: 311: 310: 307: 290: 286: 282: 281: 276: 273: 269: 268: 264: 258: 255: 252: 248: 243: 239: 233: 225: 221: 216: 215: 196: 195: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2179:AbbeyZastrow 2173:— Preceding 2170: 2132: 2129: 2128: 2125: 2102: 2082: 2073: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2050: 2023: 2020: 1978: 1971:Page number 1938: 1935: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1924: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1885: 1855: 1819: 1777: 1773: 1720: 1679: 1657: 1654:Take to talk 1634: 1609:source check 1588: 1582: 1577: 1573: 1571: 1532: 1529: 1506: 1456:— Preceding 1451: 1449: 1445: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1372:cite journal 1351:(2): 153–9. 1348: 1345:Equine Vet J 1344: 1338: 1324:cite journal 1303:(1): 14–20. 1300: 1297:Equine Vet J 1296: 1290: 1276:cite journal 1260: 1256: 1250: 1240:suggested) ( 1201:cite journal 1186: 1174:|accessdate= 1165:cite journal 1146: 1142: 1132: 1123: 1118: 1013: 899: 894: 849: 675: 655: 635: 632: 629: 625: 621: 617: 592: 588:AbbeyZastrow 568: 509:Chiropractic 475: 451:Chiropractic 442:Chiropractic 435: 414:Chiropractic 364: 318: 278: 238:WikiProjects 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2067:Sourcecheck 1513:Anne Delong 1402:exceptional 645:—Preceding 228:Start-class 148:free images 31:not a forum 2200:Categories 2155:Montanabw 2130:Abstract: 2097:this tool 2090:this tool 1996:removed.( 1979:QuackGuru 1886:QuackGuru 1875:DrChrissy 1856:QuackGuru 1820:QuackGuru 1778:Doc James 1752:Montanabw 1721:QuackGuru 1703:Montanabw 1680:QuackGuru 1665:Montanabw 1660:QuackGuru 1629:this tool 1622:this tool 1236:ignored ( 1222:|journal= 1094:thoughts? 992:Brangifer 860:Brangifer 852:recentism 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2187:contribs 2175:unsigned 2103:Cheers.— 1937:research 1788:contribs 1635:Cheers.— 1545:cbignore 1470:contribs 1458:unsigned 1364:18089466 1316:18083655 1268:21541885 1257:NZ Vet J 1154:21056301 1033:WP:MEDRS 1029:21056301 1014:Efficacy 600:PrimeBOT 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2113::Online 2053:checked 2030:my edit 1914:Source? 1645::Online 1574:checked 1539:my edit 647:undated 552:history 518:history 478:on the 321:on the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2061:failed 1553:nobots 1424:Puhlaa 1096:Puhlaa 1081:Puhlaa 1045:WP:ASF 925:Puhlaa 782:Puhlaa 716:Puhlaa 679:Puhlaa 234:scale. 126:Google 1792:email 1770:Usage 1406:RexxS 1050:RexxS 1005:mean: 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2183:talk 2143:talk 2057:true 2002:talk 1986:talk 1962:talk 1945:talk 1893:talk 1863:talk 1843:talk 1827:talk 1807:talk 1784:talk 1728:talk 1687:talk 1578:true 1517:talk 1489:talk 1485:DVMt 1466:talk 1428:talk 1410:talk 1378:link 1361:PMID 1330:link 1313:PMID 1282:link 1265:PMID 1242:help 1226:help 1214:help 1178:help 1151:PMID 1100:talk 1085:talk 1054:talk 1026:PMID 1012:The 996:talk 929:talk 880:talk 876:DVMt 864:talk 829:talk 825:DVMt 786:talk 749:talk 745:DVMt 720:talk 699:talk 695:DVMt 683:talk 663:talk 641:talk 604:talk 578:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2071:). 2059:or 2044:to 1603:RfC 1565:to 1353:doi 1305:doi 1210:|1= 960:one 895:two 643:) 598:by 470:Mid 313:Mid 176:TWL 2202:: 2189:) 2185:• 2145:) 2069:}} 2065:{{ 2004:) 1989:) 1973:76 1968:) 1964:) 1947:) 1939:.( 1896:) 1866:) 1849:) 1845:) 1830:) 1813:) 1809:) 1794:) 1790:· 1786:· 1731:) 1690:) 1616:. 1611:}} 1607:{{ 1551:{{ 1547:}} 1543:{{ 1519:) 1491:) 1472:) 1468:• 1430:) 1412:) 1374:}} 1370:{{ 1359:. 1349:40 1347:. 1326:}} 1322:{{ 1311:. 1301:40 1299:. 1278:}} 1274:{{ 1261:59 1259:. 1230:; 1218:; 1205:: 1203:}} 1199:{{ 1169:: 1167:}} 1163:{{ 1147:26 1145:. 1141:. 1102:) 1087:) 1056:) 998:) 931:) 882:) 866:) 831:) 788:) 751:) 722:) 701:) 685:) 665:) 606:) 590:. 156:) 54:; 2181:( 2141:( 2099:. 2092:. 2080:Y 2008:) 2000:( 1983:( 1960:( 1951:) 1943:( 1890:( 1860:( 1841:( 1824:( 1805:( 1782:( 1725:( 1717:. 1684:( 1631:. 1624:. 1515:( 1487:( 1464:( 1426:( 1408:( 1380:) 1366:. 1355:: 1332:) 1318:. 1307:: 1284:) 1270:. 1244:) 1228:) 1224:( 1216:) 1212:( 1195:. 1180:) 1176:( 1159:. 1098:( 1083:( 1052:( 994:( 927:( 902:. 878:( 862:( 827:( 784:( 747:( 718:( 697:( 681:( 661:( 639:( 602:( 482:. 325:. 240:: 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index