The effect of low force chiropractic adjustments on body surface electromagnetic field.

The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2004 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream
MixedLow evidencePaper 3604

In the experimental group receiving a low force Toftness chiropractic adjustment, mean body surface EMF decreased at all four spinal locations, with statistically significant decreases at the cervical region (42449 ± 907 to 41643 ± 1165 nT; p<0.01) and sacral…

Study snapshot

PublicationThe Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2004
Study typerandomized_trial
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the body surface electromagnetic field (EMF) changes using a sensitive magnetometer before and after a specific Toftness chiropractic adjustment in asymptomatic human subjects. METHOD: Forty-four subjects were randomly assigned into control (20 subjects) and experimental groups (24 subjects) in a pre and post-test design. The Triaxial Fluxgate Magnetometer FGM-5DTAA (Walker Scientific, Worcester, Massachusetts) with five digit display and resolution of 1 nanotesla (nT) was used for EMF detection. The EMF in the research room and on the adjustment table was monitored and recorded. The subjects' body surface (cervical, thoracic, lumbar and sacral areas) EMF was determined in the prone position before and after the chiropractic adjustment. A low force Toftness chiropractic adjustment was applied to the cervical, thoracic, lumbar and sacral areas as determined by the practitioner. RESULTS: The EMF in the research room was recorded as 41611 nT at the Z axis (earth field), 13761 nT at the X axis and 7438 nT at the Y axis. The EMF on the adjusting table changed minimally during the 15 minute observation period. The EMF on the subjects' body surface decreased at 4 spinal locations after chiropractic adjustment. The EMF (mean +/- SD in nT) decreased significantly at the cervical region from 42449 +/- 907 to 41643 +/- 1165 (p < 0.01) and at the sacral regions from 43206 +/- 760 to 42713 +/- 552 (p < 0.01). The EMF at the lumbar and thoracic regions decreased but did not reach a statistically significant level. No significant changes of the body surface EMF were found in the control group. CONCLUSION: A low force Toftness chiropractic adjustment in the cervical and sacral areas resulted in a significant reduction of the cervical and sacral surface EMF. No significant body surface EMF changes were observed in the lumbar and thoracic regions. The mechanisms of the EMF reduction after chiropractic adjustment are not known.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typerandomized_trial
Effect directionmixed
PopulationAsymptomatic human subjects
Sample size44
ExposureELF · pre/post; adjusting table observed for 15 minutes
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In the experimental group receiving a low force Toftness chiropractic adjustment, mean body surface EMF decreased at all four spinal locations, with statistically significant decreases at the cervical region (42449 ± 907 to 41643 ± 1165 nT; p<0.01) and sacral region (43206 ± 760 to 42713 ± 552 nT; p<0.01). Lumbar and thoracic decreases were not statistically significant. No significant body surface EMF changes were found in the control group.

Outcomes measured

  • Body surface electromagnetic field (nanotesla) at cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral regions (pre/post)
  • Ambient EMF in research room and on adjustment table

Limitations

  • Frequency characteristics of the measured field were not reported (measurements reported in nT only).
  • Blinding and details of randomization procedure were not described in the abstract.
  • Short-term pre/post design; no follow-up reported.
  • Adjustment sites were determined by the practitioner; standardization not described.
  • Mechanisms for observed changes were stated as unknown.
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "other",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "pre/post; adjusting table observed for 15 minutes"
  },
  "population": "Asymptomatic human subjects",
  "sample_size": 44,
  "outcomes": [
    "Body surface electromagnetic field (nanotesla) at cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral regions (pre/post)",
    "Ambient EMF in research room and on adjustment table"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In the experimental group receiving a low force Toftness chiropractic adjustment, mean body surface EMF decreased at all four spinal locations, with statistically significant decreases at the cervical region (42449 ± 907 to 41643 ± 1165 nT; p<0.01) and sacral region (43206 ± 760 to 42713 ± 552 nT; p<0.01). Lumbar and thoracic decreases were not statistically significant. No significant body surface EMF changes were found in the control group.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Frequency characteristics of the measured field were not reported (measurements reported in nT only).",
    "Blinding and details of randomization procedure were not described in the abstract.",
    "Short-term pre/post design; no follow-up reported.",
    "Adjustment sites were determined by the practitioner; standardization not described.",
    "Mechanisms for observed changes were stated as unknown."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "chiropractic adjustment",
    "Toftness",
    "magnetometer",
    "fluxgate magnetometer",
    "body surface electromagnetic field",
    "nanotesla",
    "cervical",
    "sacral",
    "thoracic",
    "lumbar",
    "asymptomatic subjects",
    "randomized control"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: Not supplied
PubMed: 17549217

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library