An article about the overuse of spinal imaging has been retracted after the owner of a chiropractic product it criticized in passing complained to the journal.
The paper, “An investigation into the chiropractic practice and communication of routine repetitive radiographic imaging for the location of postural misalignments,” was retracted in June from the Journal of Clinical Imaging Science after the editor-in-chief learned it contained “controversial statements regarding the commercial product Denneroll,” according to the statement.
Denneroll is a line of support products that purports to help with “spinal remodeling” for people whose spines aren’t curved in the normal way, according to a company brochure. The company’s website states that the Denneroll products are “second to none in spinal orthotics.”
The retraction notice said Deed Harrison, a chiropractor whose family owns the Denneroll product line, “claimed that the data presented against this product lacks scientific backing.” Harrison’s father, Donald Harrison, is the founder of Denneroll and the “origin” of a technique called Chiropractic BioPhysics (CBP) which is the basis of the Denneroll product line.
According to the notice, “the authors of the manuscript acknowledged the error. Therefore, on ethical grounds, the article is being retracted.” The corresponding author, Brogan Williams, a researcher at the Association of Musculoskeletal Sports Physiologists in Auckland, New Zealand, did not respond to our request for comment.
Vikram Dogra, the editor-in-chief of the journal, did not respond to our request for comment.
As the authors of the retracted paper discussed evidence they said showed “no association between pain and reversed cervical curves,” they wrote:
It must be addressed that over the years, there have been some contradictory studies by one very active group, the Harrisons.
“The Harrisons have been challenged multiple times by many leading chiropractors, claiming the method was ‘physiologically flawed’ and the studies extremely ‘vulnerable to false-positive diagnoses,’” Williams and his colleagues wrote, citing a 1998 study.
They also mentioned two 2006 critical reviews of a 2005 paper by both Harrisons supporting “structural rehabilitation of the spine” and the CBP method. The reviews “concluded that ‘we must reclassify their studies as seriously flawed controlled clinical trials’ and ‘inconclusive evidence that may be viewed as professionally irresponsible by the scientific and academic community,’” Williams and his colleagues wrote.
We attempted to contact the authors from each paper referenced, but none responded to our request.
Harrison told Retraction Watch that he is “pleased with the decision by the Editor, the Board, and the Publisher based on the information I provided to them.” He refused to share the letter he sent the journal and would not respond to other questions.
Two “testimonies” on the Denneroll website state “I personally use the Denneroll Orthotic device for my patients. Now, I have chosen to put the CBP name behind the Denneroll and recommend it to other Chiropractors.” They are attributed to Deed E. Harrison and Deed E. Harrison 2. A third, with the standard “Lorem ipsum dolor” text indicating filler, is attributed to Deed E. Harrison 3.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
A colleague once published an article in which she and a graduate student evaluated a heavily marketed and expensive program that several state governments had purchased (on the basis of “research” conducted by the owners of the program and “testimonials” on the website). The program evaluation failed to show beneficial effects in one state. The article appropriately described limitations on the evaluation. The lawyers for the program owners sent a letter demanding an apology and retraction to the journal editor, publisher, and my colleague; the law firm threatened to sue. The letter listed the limitations the authors had described in claiming the research was so faulty it deserved retraction. After we finally got the university counsel to write a letter of resistance (basically saying, bring it on) and the publisher supported the journal editor and publication of the article, no retraction was made. The journal did publish the letter verbatim from law firm in which the lawyers added that the program creators had modified the program structure such that, anyway, the evaluation was no longer valid and the program was “new and improved.” For an early career faculty member, the experience was traumatic. For all her colleagues, it was a lesson in campus politics and an unfortunate caution about selecting what to research.
The story sounds like Streisand effect material, and Denneroll may well end up wishing they had kept quiet 😉
Is chiropractic a science? Asking for a friend.
Yes.
Pseudoscience. Placebo. Wikipedia: It has esoteric origins[3] and is based on several pseudoscientific ideas.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic
Its therapeutic effect is just placebo effect –if we rule out the possibility of its adverse effects like neglecting real treatments. Yet, for some patients, placebo effect is all they need. I would suggest it not as the first line of treatment but when all real medical treatments are done and failed. My aunt had knee pain that didn’t respond well to medication. But chiropractic done by a handsome, charismatic young practitioner completely “healed” her for good!
Citing wikipedia, instead of a medical journal? Lol.
Interesting, if you follow the threads. “Denneroll” gets about 116 hits on google scholar and four names predominate – D.E. and D.D. Harrison; I.M. Moustafa and P.A. Oakley. The latter has published a number of papers with the Harrisons, all insisting that “x-rays” and radiography exposure are not harmful, indeed may be therapeutic. I.M. Moustafa is confused by Google scholar – they link the name to a guy at Penn State who is a molecular virologist rather than the Denneroll one whom the actual papers say is affiliated with University of Sharjah. That raises questions about the true “H score” of both “IM Moustafa’s “. I wonder if the Penn State guy even knows he is linked? “Larry the cat” comes to mind.