By Dr. Christopher Kent

Many doctors of chiropractic employ orthopedic and neurological examinations as the core elements of their clinical examinations. They often do so because that is what they were taught to do in school, and what they were tested on in their licensing examinations. However, the fact that a procedure is popular, taught in school, or tested on examinations does not magically confer reliability and validity.

Walsh [1] reviewed the available literature on orthopedic tests common in chiropractic, and concluded: “The use of orthopedic tests has been an integral part of the physical examination for a long time. They have remained a part of the examination more by virtue of common use than on the basis of any scientific demonstration of their validity and clinical significance. To make a judgment on the clinical worth of a test, its validity, reliability, sensitivity and specificity should ideally be known. Unfortunately, for most, if not all, orthopedic tests, these measures have not been determined.” For more references and discussion on this issue, see: and

Neurological tests in patients with no neurological symptoms serve little purpose. Deyo [2] wrote, “In reality, though, if the patient has no neurological symptoms, including sciatica, in the history, the yield of this is close to zero.”

A mandate to teach and practice procedures shown to be worthless or harmful creates an ethical problem.

Different health care specialties say it in slightly different ways, and ACOG’s statement [3] on the matter is clear and concise: “It is unethical to prescribe, provide, or seek compensation for therapies that are of no benefit to the patient.” The same may be said for examination procedures.

Furthermore, there are basic ethical principles [4] that are violated when patients are misled into believing that the examinations that they are receiving are reliable and valid. These include:

The principle of nonmalfeasance

The principle of beneficence

The principle of veracity

The types of harm that may result have been described [5]:

“Nonspecific harm (labeling). Harm caused to a patient by the transmittal of false or misleading information that may cause emotional harm, a false sense of security, a false sense of vulnerability, dependency, or otherwise create in the patient a set of beliefs about their health that is manifestly untrue.

Indirect harm (substitution). Harm caused to a patient by substituting a specific diagnostic or therapeutic procedure whose safety, therapeutic effectiveness, or diagnostic utility is either unknown or is known to be unsafe, ineffective, of no diagnostic utility, for a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure of known safety, effectiveness, or diagnostic utility.”

Finally, a doctor owes legal duties to a patient. In Smith v. Yohe [6], the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held, “If a physician, as an aid to his diagnosis, i.e., his judgment, does not avail himself of the scientific means and facilities open to him for the collection of the best factual data upon which to arrive at his diagnosis, the result is not an error of judgment but negligence in failing to secure an adequate factual basis upon which to support his diagnosis or judgment.”

If your clinical objective is the detection and correction of vertebral subluxations, and you are relying on orthopedic and neurological examination findings, you would do well to consider whether those examinations have been shown to be reliable and valid for that purpose.

(DISCLAIMER: This column is provided for educational purposes only. The accuracy or timeliness of the information presented is not warranted, and may not be applicable in your jurisdiction. Always obtain legal advice from qualified local counsel. The information presented is not legal advice, and no attorneyclient relationship is established.)


1. Walsh MJ: “Evaluation of orthopedic testing of the low back for nonspecific lower back pain.” JMPT 1998;21(4):232.

2. Deyo R: “The search for serious disease: what is the best strategy?” The Back Letter 2003;18(9):102.

3. Code of Professional Ethics. ACOG (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology) 2004.

4. Mootz, RD, Coulter I, Schultz GD: Chapter 11. “Professionalism and ethics in chiropractic.” In: Haldeman S: “Principles and Practice of Chiropractic” (93rd Ed). McGrawHill Professional. 2004.


6. 1963.PA.40514; 194 A.2d 167, 412 Pa. 94

Get Started with INSiGHT Scanning

Take our Free Practice Strategy Assessment. A Personalized Guide and Expert Strategy Call to Help Determine How Scanning will Help you Grow

Dr. David Fletcher is actively involved in all aspects of innovation teaching and research connected to the INSiGHT™ scanning technologies. He is widely recognized for his ability to share his expertise in compelling and easy to understand ways.

Dr David is a renowned chiropractor who practiced for many years with his associates in a scan-centric thriving principled family-based practice in Toronto. He is a sought-after teacher mentor and keynote speaker who takes every opportunity to share the wisdom and the power of chiropractic as it is meant to be.
Dr. David Fletcher
DC FRCCSS(C) – Founder & CEO CLA Inc.

Your Guide to Transformational Reporting

Read more about how the CORESCORE is an integrated neural efficiency index that is calculated when the INSiGHT technologies are combined in an exam to create a profile. Learn about how this single number index, gives the chiropractor and the patient something to compare to over time.

Read these Next…

Get Informed

Join 23,121 other Chiropractors and receive topics covering day to day challenges of running your practice.