Chiropractic is one of the fastest growing professions within true ‘healthcare' today. In fact, more people flock to so-called ‘alternative' healthcare providers (i.e. chiropractors, massage therapists, acupuncturists, etc.) than their medical doctors. Among ‘alternative' healthcare providers, chiropractors are the most popular.

Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by a Canadian, named D.D. Palmer (Local monument in Palmer Park, Port Perry, ON). The central tenet or idea of chiropractic is that small displacements within the spine and other joints cause interference to the local nerve, (termed Subluxation) and therefore interfering with its inherent function. Because the nervous system controls and coordinates all functions of the body, wherever subluxation nervous system interference occurs, anything down-line from the nerve could potentially be affected (i.e. neck subluxation can cause arm numbness/tingling; low back subluxation can cause sciatica, etc.). Importantly, recent cutting edge research has proven that it is much, much more complicated than this; that is: we cannot underestimate the power of the chiropractic adjustment.

Today, there is more research supporting chiropractic than the average chiropractor knows about. In fact, there is so much being discovered that today's current understanding of chiropractic has not fully disseminated into college teachings. For this reason doctors are encouraged to participate in continuing education seminars.

Traditional Chiropractic

Traditional chiropractic is what most chiropractors practice. The doctor delivers ‘adjustments' to the neck, low back, mid-back or even the leg and arm joints that is suspect to be the cause/contributor of some problem/disorder. Sometimes the doctor may use a special table to assist in the maneuver (i.e. drop table), or use a hand-held instrument of some sort (i.e. CBP instrument, Activator, Impulse) to deliver the thrust.

Above, a chiropractor is pictured giving a traditional low back manipulation for a patient with lower back and leg pain.

Traditional chiropractic is why the profession exists today. Study after study has documented how adjustments to the neck or low back results in quicker, cheaper, and more effective pain relief than other treatments such as drugs, physiotherapy, exercise or back school. Unfortunately, traditional chiropractic is often only effective in the short term. Typically, even if traditional chiropractic care had helped your problem originally, the same problem eventually returns because the structural problem has not been corrected – this is where Advanced Chiropractic comes in...

Advanced Chiropractic

CBP technique uses Mirror Image® exercise, adjusting and postural traction to correct spine and posture deviations back towards normal alignment. By correcting whole spine misalignments, more permanent corrections of your ailments can be achieved. In fact, there have been several clinical trials as well as case reports recently published documenting dramatic improvements in a variety of diseases and conditions by remolding the spine/posture back towards the normal.^1-13

Surprisingly, despite the relative short existence of CBP® technique (25 years), it is the most thoroughly researched technique in chiropractic today! More than half of the technique publications are published in medical and orthopedic scientific journals. Because of this, CBP® technique is becoming well recognized worldwide and is one of the fastest growing techniques in chiropractic. Currently there are very few chiropractors certified in Ontario; the Advanced Chiropractic Associates is a CBP® certified clinic.

CBP® Technique (www.idealspine.com)

Improved postural alignment has been one of the most sought-after goals in the treatment of human ailments for ages; this continues today in all medical arenas, such as dentistry, physiotherapy, physiatry, surgery, and chiropractic. Only recently, however, has there been a non-invasive procedure that can correct spine and postural alignment, correcting faulty alignments and reversing problems previously thought attributable to so-called ‘normal aging.' This procedure is called ‘Chiropractic BioPhysics' or ‘Clinical Biomechanics of Posture,' referred to as CBP® technique.

CBP® technique (Chiropractic BioPhysics / Clinical Biomechanics of Posture) is an evidence-based, spine and posture structural rehabilitation. Doctors practicing CBP® are required to take at least 5 CBP® seminars and to pass a written and practical examination to become Distinguished Fellows of CBP®. CBP® doctors can provide all the same treatments that usual chiropractors provide but are able to provide more permanent corrections to patient ailments that coincide with correcting posture.

CBP® chiropractors are the orthodontists within chiropractic that also serve as the general dentist which would check for cavities (subluxations) and provide maintenance cleaning (regular adjustments).

The development of CBP® technique has taken 25 years. It was started in 1980 by Donald. D. Harrison. Today it is the fastest growing technique in chiropractic because of its foundations in scientific research, its practicality, and most importantly, its successes in curing human ills. It is the most thoroughly studied of chiropractic's over 200 techniques, where ongoing research is in collaboration with some of the finest spine researchers today.

Most importantly, CBP® technique is the only proven way to consistently change the posture and spinal alignment towards the normal. Much like a family doctor would prescribe medications to bring cholesterol or high blood pressure back towards the normal levels, this is what CBP® chiropractors do only with your spine and postural alignment.

CBP® chiropractors differ from most chiropractors in several ways:

First, extra training is required to practice CBP®. At least five technique seminars must be attended and certification is only given once the doctor successfully completes the written and practical examination in CBP® methods. These certified doctors are then listed in ‘yellow highlight' on the CBP® website (www.idealspine.com).

Second, the CBP® chiropractor practices as a specialist. CBP® doctors are much like orthodontists within dentistry – the only difference is that the CBP® doctor can also do the regular check-up and teeth-cleaning type of maintenance adjustments as a regular dentist or chiropractor would. Thus, a CBP® chiropractor is the specialist and regular guy all in one.

Third, the CBP® doctor practices evidence-based chiropractic. More and more today evidence-based guidelines are being constructed for obtaining optimal treatments throughout medicine. While traditional chiropractors vary extensively on treatment frequency, CBP® treatments are based on the six clinical trials that have been published on the technique (See ‘The CBP® Clinical Trials' below). Surprisingly, there is currently more research in support of CBP® technique than the older techniques taught in all Chiropractic Colleges!

Correcting Posture

For centuries human healthcare providers have been trying to restore better posture to their patients in order to restore health. This is because postural alterations (subluxations) are known to be associated with a plethora of human afflictions from general pain syndromes (i.e. low back pain, neck pain, headaches, etc.),^14-24 to problems with specific joints such as the hip^25,26 and the knee,²⁷ to problems with specific spinal regions such as the flat-back syndrome (loss of normal low back curve),²⁸ and cervical kyphosis (reversal of normal neck curve),²² to local organ ailments such as uterine prolapse,^29,30 gastric herniation,³¹ and respiratory function,^32-34 to thinking,^33,35 and even to morbidity and mortality.^36-42 That is correct, better postured people live longer.

* THE PROBLEM - Why so many have given up on restoring posture is that until recently, nobody knew how to achieve it! This is why so few doctors and therapists assess and treat posture. Even the few who do ‘assess' and attempt to ‘correct' bad posture with various methods usually, ultimately fail. The reason for this is two-fold:

1. Until recently a comprehensive posture evaluation has not existed. Only recently has CBP® developed the most comprehensive and thorough method to examine human posture (See ‘Abnormal Postures' below). CBP® developers Drs. Don and Deed Harrison have worked with Montreal web-based company Biotonix to develop a new module PosturePrint^TM so the CBP® doctor has a reliable and valid means to quantify human posture in 3D. We use this cutting-edge technology at the Innovative Chiropractic Centre.
2. It was thought that muscles alone were responsible for maintaining and correcting posture. However, it has never been scientifically demonstrated that any form of exercise can significantly correct postural misplacements. CBP® researchers have discovered that the secret to correcting posture is in ‘creeping' or stretching the ligaments of the spine that is not achieved by exercise or standard chiropractic adjusting.

What is Normal Posture?

Just as there are normal values for heart rate, blood pressure, and any other physiological parameter, there is also a normal standing posture and spinal position. The normal posture is one that has the head, rib cage, pelvis and feet aligned and balanced upon the other, both from the front and side views. Your posture is the ‘Window into your Spine' as it is inside of your posture and responsible for its alignment. The spine should be straight and vertical from the front. From the side the spine should have normal alternating curves to allow for normal pain-free, maximal range of motion and movement.

NORMAL/IDEAL POSTURE
From the front the posture is symmetric and the spine is straight. From the side view, the head, rib cage, pelvis and feet are vertically balanced. The spine has essential curves in the side view. These curves have specific normal angles that can be measured from x-rays. Picture courtesy of CBP®(www.idealspine.com).

What is Abnormal Posture?

As seen in the pictures below there are many abnormal postures. There can be a shifting off of the midline or a turning around the midline. All these postures need to be ruled out for proper treatment. This is the most comprehensive postural assessment system ever created (As originated by Don Harrison, DC, PhD, MSE in the 1980s).

ABNORMAL POSTURES
These are all the abnormal postures possible. Each picture represents a simple deviated postural alignment, most patients come in with several abnormal postures and even combinations of more than one per area (i.e. forward head and side-shifted head-first and third pictures from top left). The left side represents shifting (translated) postures, the right side represents turning (rotated) postures.

Q: How would one correct your postural deviations without doing this analysis first?

A: Chances are your problem(s) have been overlooked and undiagnosed – therefore, untreated and still present!

Do A Self-Test

Self Test: To perform a simple self-test, stand in front of a full-length mirror. Close your eyes and nod your head backward and forward a couple of times and stop in your neutral or comfortable position. Open your eyes without moving any body part. Picture courtesy of CBP® (www.idealspine.com).

LOOK FOR ANY OF THESE DEVIATIONS IN YOUR SPINE AND POSTURE:

1. Top left pic: Is midline of face centred over the neck and shoulders?
2. Top center pic: Is your head vertical?
3. Top right pic: Do you see both ears equally?
4. Middle left pic: Is there equal space between your arms and body?
5. Middle center pic: Is one shoulder higher than the other?
6. Middle right pic: Is one shoulder/arm more forward than the other?
7. Bottom left pic: Are your hips centred over your feet?
8. Bottom center pic: Are your hips level?
9. Bottom right pic: Is one hip forward than the other/one buttock further back than the other?

How Does CBP® Chiropractic Correct Posture?

CBP® technique uses a multi-modal approach that includes exercises, adjusting, and postural traction. All of these are performed using the ‘Mirror Image' concept. This simply means to reverse your specific bad postures. By reversing the bad posture we are able EAT your bad posture: Exercise the weakened and shortened muscles, Adjust the spine and posture, Traction or stretch the body back into normal alignment.

The CBP® Clinical Trials

*There have been six clinical trials performed, 4 on difference neck subluxations and 2 on different low back subluxations:

1. Eur Spine J. 2005 Mar;14(2):155-62. Epub 2004 Oct 27.¹ A non-randomized clinical control trial of Harrison mirror image methods for correcting trunk list (lateral translations of the thoracic cage) in patients with chronic low back pain.Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Betz JW, Harrison DD, Colloca CJ, Haas JW, Janik TJ, Holland B.Spinal trunk list is a common occurrence in clinical practice, but few conservative methods of spinal rehabilitation have been reported. This study is a non-randomized clinical control trial of 63 consecutive retrospective subjects undergoing spinal rehabilitation and 23 prospective volunteer controls. All subjects presented with lateral thoracic-cage-translation posture (trunk list) and chronic low back pain. Initial and follow-up numerical pain rating scales (NRS) and AP lumbar radiographs were obtained after a mean of 11.5 weeks of care (average of 36 visits) for the treatment group and after a mean of 37.5 weeks for the control group. The radiographs were digitized and analyzed for a horizontal displacement of T12 from the second sacral tubercle, verticality of the lumbar spine at the sacral base, and any dextro/levo angle at mid-lumbar spine. Treatment subjects received the Harrison mirror image postural correction methods, which included an opposite trunk-list exercise and a new method of opposite trunk-list traction. Control subjects did not receive spinal rehabilitation therapy, but rather self-managed their back pain. For the treatment group, there were statistically significant improvements (approximately 50%) in all radiographic measurements and a decrease in pain intensity (NRS: 3.0 to 0.8). For the control group, no significant radiographic and NRS differences were found, except in trunk-list displacement of T12 to S1, worsened by 2.4 mm. Mirror image (opposite posture) postural corrective exercises and a new method of trunk-list traction resulted in 50% reduction in trunk list and were associated with nearly resolved pain intensity in this patient population. The findings warrant further study in the conservative treatment of chronic low back pain and spinal disorders.
2. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004 Jul;41(4):631-9.² Conservative methods for reducing lateral translation postures of the head: A nonrandomized clinical control trial.Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Betz J, Haas JW, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Holland B.Fifty-one retrospective, consecutive patients were compared to twenty-six prospective volunteer controls in a nonrandomized clinical control trial. Both groups had chronic neck pain and lateral head translation posture. For treatment subjects, beginning and follow-up pain scales and anteroposterior (AP) cervical radiographs were obtained after 12.8 weeks of care (average of 37 visits), while the duration was a mean of 12 months for control subjects. Digitized radiographs were analyzed for Risser-Ferguson angles and a horizontal translation distance of C2 from a vertical line through T3. For treatment, patients received the Harrison mirror-image postural methods, which include mechanically assisted manipulation, opposite head posture exercise, and opposite head translation posture traction. While no significant differences were found in the control group subjects' pain scores and AP radiographic measurements, statistically significant improvements were observed in the treatment group subjects' pain scores and lateral translation displacements of C2 compared to T3 (pretrial score: 13.7 mm, posttrial score: 6.8 mm) and in angle measurements.
3. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003 Mar-Apr;26(3):139-51.³ Increasing the cervical lordosis with chiropractic biophysics seated combined extension-compression and transverse load cervical traction with cervical manipulation: nonrandomized clinical control trial.Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Betz JJ, Janik TJ, Holland B, Colloca CJ, Haas JW.Biomechanics Laboratory, Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada. BACKGROUND: Cervical lordosis has been shown to be an important outcome of care; however, few conservative methods of rehabilitating sagittal cervical alignment have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To study whether a seated, retracted, extended, and compressed position would cause tension in the anterior cervical ligament, anterior disk, and muscle structures, and thereby restore cervical lordosis or increase the curvature in patients with loss of the cervical lordosis. Study design: Nonrandomized, prospective, clinical control trial. METHODS: Thirty preselected patients, after diagnostic screening for tolerance to cervical extension with compression, were treated for the first 3 weeks of care using cervical manipulation and a new type of cervical extension-compression traction (vertical weight applied to the subject's forehead in the sitting position with a transverse load at the area of kyphosis). Pretreatment and posttreatment Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain ratings were compared along with pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cervical radiographs analyzed with the posterior tangent method for changes in alignment. Results are compared to a control group of 33 subjects receiving no treatment and matched for age, sex, weight, height, and pain. RESULTS: Control subjects reported no change in VAS pain ratings and had no statistical significant change in segmental or global cervical alignment on comparative lateral cervical radiographs (difference in all angle mean values < 1.3 degrees ) repeated an average of 8.5 months later. For the traction group, VAS ratings were 4.1 pretreatment and 1.1 posttreatment. On comparative lateral cervical radiographs repeated after an average of 38 visits over 14.6 weeks, 10 angles and 2 distances showed statistically significant improvements, including anterior head weight bearing (mean improvement of 11 mm), Cobb angle at C2-C7 (mean improvement of -13.6 degrees ), and the angle of intersection of the posterior tangents at C2-C7 (mean improvement of 17.9 degrees ). Twenty-one (70%) of the treatment group subjects were followed for an additional 14 months; improvements in cervical lordosis and anterior weight bearing were maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic biophysics (CBP) technique's extension-compression 2-way cervical traction combined with spinal manipulation decreased chronic neck pain intensity and improved cervical lordosis in 38 visits over 14.6 weeks, as indicated by increases in segmental and global cervical alignment. Anterior head weight-bearing was reduced by 11 mm; Cobb angles averaged an increase of 13 degrees to 14 degrees; and the angle of intersection of posterior tangents on C2 and C7 averaged 17.9 degrees of improvement.
4. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Nov;83(11):1585-91.⁴ Changes in sagittal lumbar configuration with a new method of extension traction: nonrandomized clinical controlled trial.Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Holland B.Department of Rehabilitative Medicine, University of Southern California School of Medicine, 1339 Luna Vista Drive, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, USA.OBJECTIVE: To determine if a new method of lumbar extension traction can increase lordosis in chronic low back pain (LBP) subjects with decreased lordosis. DESIGN: Nonrandomized controlled trial with follow-up at 3 months and 1(1/2) years. SETTING: Primary care spine clinic in Nevada. PATIENTS: Beginning in mid-1998, the first 48 consecutive patients, who met the inclusion criteria of chronic LBP with decreased lordosis and who completed the treatment program were matched for sex, age, height, weight, and pain scores to 30 control subjects with chronic LBP, who received no treatment. INTERVENTIONS: A new form of 3-point bending lumbar extension traction was provided in-office 3 to 4 times a week for 12+/-4 weeks. Per session, traction duration was started at 3 minutes and was increased to a maximum of 20 minutes. For short-term pain relief, torsion lumbar spinal manipulation was provided in the initial 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain as measured on a visual analog scale (VAS) and standing lateral lumbar radiographic measurements. RESULTS: Pain scales and radiographic measurements did not change in the control subjects. In the traction group, VAS ratings decreased from mean +/- standard deviation of 4.4+/-1.9 pretreatment to 0.6+/-0.9 posttreatment (P<.001), and radiographic angles (except at T12-L1) showed statistically significant changes. Mean changes were 5.7 degrees at L4-5 (P<.001), 11.3 degrees between posterior tangents on L1 and L5 (P<.001), 9.1 degrees in Cobb angle at T12-S1 (P<.001), 4.6 degrees in pelvic tilt (P<.001), and 4.7 degrees in Ferguson's sacral base angle (P<.001). At long-term follow-up (17(1/2)mo), 34 of the 48 (71%) subjects returned. Improvements in lordosis were maintained in all 34. CONCLUSIONS: This new method of lumbar extension traction is the first nonsurgical rehabilitative procedure to show increases in lumbar lordosis in chronic LBP subjects with hypolordosis. The fact that there was no change in control subjects' lumbar lordosis indicates the stability of the lumbar lordosis and the repeatability of x-ray procedures. Because, on average, chronic LBP patients have hypolordosis, additional randomized trials should be performed to evaluate the clinical significance of restoration of the lumbar lordosis in chronic LBP subjects. Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
5. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Apr;83(4):447-53.⁵ A new 3-point bending traction method for restoring cervical lordosis and cervical manipulation: a nonrandomized clinical controlled trial.Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Holland B.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new 3-point bending type of cervical traction. DESIGN: Nonrandomized controlled trial of prospective, consecutive patients compared with control subjects. Follow-up patient data were obtained at 3 and 15(1/2) months, and 8 1/10 months for controls. SETTING: Data were collected at a spine clinic in Nevada. PATIENTS: Volunteer subjects consisted of 30 patients and 24 controls. Subjects had cervicogenic pain (neck pain, headaches, arm pain, and/or numbness). Subjects were included if their Ruth Jackson radiographic stress lines measured less than 25 degrees but were excluded if they had suspected disk herniation or canal stenosis. All subjects completed the first follow-up examinations, and 25 of 30 patients completed the long-term follow-up examination. INTERVENTIONS: Spinal manipulation for pain and a new form of 3-point bending cervical traction to improve lordosis. Cervical manipulation was provided for the first 3 to 4 weeks of treatment. Traction treatment consisted of 3 to 5 sessions per week for 9 +/- 1 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Besides pain visual analog scale (VAS) ratings, pre- and posttreatment lateral cervical radiographs were analyzed. RESULTS: Control subjects reported no change in the pain VAS ratings and had no statistically significant change in segmental or global radiographic alignment. For the traction group, VAS ratings were 4.3 pretreatment and 1.6 posttreatment. Traction group radiographic measurements showed statistically significant improvements (P <.008 in all instances of statistical significance), including anterior head weight bearing (improved 6.2mm), Cobb angle at C2-7 (improved 12.1 degrees ), and angle between posterior tangents at C2-7 (improved 14.2 degrees ). For the treatment group, at 15(1/2)-month follow-up, only minimal loss of C2-7 lordosis (3.5 degrees ) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Sagittal cervical traction with transverse load at midneck (2-way cervical traction) combined with cervical manipulation can improve cervical lordosis in 8 to 10 weeks as indicated by increases in segmental and global cervical alignment. Magnitude of lordosis at C2-7 remained stable at long-term follow-up. Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
6. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1994 Sep;17(7):454-64.⁶ The efficacy of cervical extension-compression traction combined with diversified manipulation and drop table adjustments in the rehabilitation of cervical lordosis: a pilot study.Harrison DD, Jackson BL, Troyanovich S, Robertson G, de George D, Barker WF.Chiropractic BioPhysics, Non-Profit, Inc., Harvest, AL 35749.OBJECTIVE: To experimentally investigate the effect of cervical extension-compression traction combined with diversified chiropractic manipulation and drop table adjusting in establishing or increasing cervical lordosis. DESIGN: Blinded, before and after trial with pre- and postlateral cervical radiographic measurement. SETTING: Primary care private chiropractic clinic in Saugus, MA. SUBJECTS: A) Control group--convenience sample who had no health care for 10-14 wk, 30 persons. B) Treatment group 1, nonrandomized control trial, 35 persons, whose pre- and postlateral cervical radiographs were taken 10-14 wk apart and whose radiographs clearly depicted C1 through C7. C) Treatment group 2, nonrandomized control trial, 30 persons, whose pre- and postlateral cervical radiographs were taken 10-14 wk apart and whose radiographs clearly depicted C1 through C7. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment group 1: diversified spinal manipulation, drop table adjustments and cervical extension-compression traction five times per week for 10-14 wk (12 wk +/- 2). Treatment group 2: diversified spinal manipulation and drop table adjustments five times per week for 10-14 wk (12 wk +/- 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anterior head translation millimeters, C2 to C7 absolute rotation angle, angle of C1 to horizontal (atlas plane angle), five relative rotation angles (C2-3, C3-4, C4-5, C5-6, C6-7) and qualitative classification of lordotic configuration. RESULTS: No statistically significant changes existed between the pre- and posttests for the control group except in the C6-7 relative rotation angle. In the treatment group 1, statistically significant differences were found in all X-ray markings. Twenty-nine of 35 members have a lordosis after treatment compared to 11 of 35 before treatment. The C2 to C7 angle changed an average 13.2 degrees, C1 to horizontal changed an average 9.8 degrees, the anterior head translation reduced an average of 6.8 mm, the average relative rotation angle changed: C2-3: 3.1, C3-4: 5.5, C4-5: 4.80, C5-6: 2.7 and C6-7: 1.1. In the treatment group 2, no statistically significant changes existed between the pre- and posttests except atlas angulation to horizontal which increased an average of 3.0 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: A transformation to a lordotic configuration or increase in lordotic configuration occurred and was measured in the majority of treatment group 1 subjects, while no change in the control group and essentially no change in treatment group 2 was measured. Extension-compression traction combined with diversified chiropractic manipulation and drop table adjusting procedures may improve or partially reestablish the cervical lordosis in 10-14 wk of daily care.

1. Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Betz J, et al. A non-randomized clinical control trial of Harrison mirror image methods for correcting trunk list (lateral translations of the thoracic cage) in patients with chronic low back pain. Euro Spine J 2005;14:155-162.
2. Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Betz J, et al. Conservative methods for reducing lateral translation postures of the head: A non-randomized clinical control trial. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004;41:631-639.
3. Harrison DE , Harrison DD, Betz J, Colloca CJ, Janik TJ, Holland B. Increasing the cervical lordosis with seated combined extension-compression and transverse load cervical traction with cervical manipulation: Nonrandomized clinical control trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2003;26:139-151.
4. Harrison DE , Cailliet R, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Holland B. Changes in sagittal lumbar configurations with a new method of extension traction: Nonrandomized clinical controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2002;83:1585-1591.
5. Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Holland B. A new 3-point bending traction method for restoring cervical lordosis and cervical manipulation: A nonrandomized clinical controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2002;83:447-453.
6. Harrison DD, Jackson BL, Troyanovich SJ, Robertson G, De George D, Barker WF. The efficacy of cervical extension-compression traction combined with diversified manipulation and drop table adjustments in the rehabilitation of cervical lordosis: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1994;17:454-464.
7. Oakley PA, Harrison DE. Use of Clinical Biomechanics of Posture (CBP) protocol in a postsurgical C4-C7 total fusion patient: A case study. J Chiro Ed 2005;19:66
8. Berry RH, Oakley PA, Harrison DE. A structural approach to the post-surgical laminectomy: a CBP case study. J Chiro Ed 2005;19:44
9. Haas JW, Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Bymers B. Reduction of symptoms in a patient with syringomyelia, cluster headaches, and cervical kyphosis. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2005;in press:
10. Ferrantelli JR, Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Steward D. Conservative management of previously unresponsive whiplash associated disorders with CBP methods: a case report. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2005;28:e1-e8
11. Paulk GP, Bennett DL, Harrison DE. Management of a chronic lumbar disk herniation with CBP methods following failed chiropractic manipulative intervention. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2004;27:579e1-579e7.
12. Bastecki A, Harrison DE, Haas JW. ADHD: A CBP case study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2004;27:525e1-525e5.
13. Harrison DE, Bula JM, Harrison DD. Nonoperative correction of the flexible flat back using lumbar extension traction: A case study of three with follow-up. J Chiro Ed 2003;17:13-14.
14. Cailliet R. Low back pain syndrome. Philadelphia:F.A. Davis, 1981:
15. Harber P, Bloswick D, Beck J, Pena L, Baker D, Lee J. Supermarket checker motions and cumulative trauma risk. J Occup Med 1993;35:805-811.
16. Genaidy AM, Karwowski W. The effects of neural posture deviations on perceived joint discomfort ratings in sitting and standing postures. Ergonomics 1993;36:785-792.
17. Rys M, Konz S. Standing. Ergonomics 1994;37:677-687.
18. Powers C, Maffucci R, Hampton S. Rearfoot posture in subjects with patellofemoral pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1995;22:155-160.
19. Eklund J, Odenrick P, Zettergren S, Johansson H. Head posture measurements among work vehicle drivers and implications for work and workplace design. Ergonomics 1994;37:623-639.
20. Watson A. Sports injuries in footballers related to defects of posture and body mechanics. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1995;35:289-294.
21. Beaman DN, Graziano GP, Glover RA, Wojtys EM, Chang V. Substance P innervation of lumbar spine facet joints. Spine 1993;18:1044-1049.
22. Ganju A, Ondra SL, Shaffrey CI. Cervical kyphosis. Techniques in Orthopaedics 2003;17:345-354.
23. Harrison DD, Harrison DE, Janik TJ, et al. Modeling of the sagittal cervical spine as a method to discriminate hypo-lordosis: results of elliptical and circular modeling in 72 asymptomatic subjects, 52 acute neck pain subjects, and 70 chronic neck pain subjects. Spine 2004;29:2485-2492.
24. Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Janik TJ, Troyanovich SJ, Harrison DE, Holland B. Elliptical modeling of the sagittal lumbar lordosis and segmental rotation angles as a method to discriminate between normal and low back pain subjects. J Spinal Disord 1998;11:430-439.
25. Offierski CM, Macnab I. Hip-spine syndrome. Spine 1983;8:316-321.
26. Davies JW. Man's assumption of the erect posture: Its effect on the position of the pelvis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1955;70:1012-1020.
27. Tsuji T, Matsuyama Y, Goto M, et al. Knee-spine syndrome: correlation between sacral inclination and patellofemoral joint pain. J Orthop Sci 2002;519-523.
28. Lee CS, Lee CK, Kim YT, Hong YM, Yoo JH. Dynamic sagittal imbalance of the spine in degenerative flat back. significance of pelvic tilt in surgical treatment. Spine 2001;26:2029-2035.
29. Lind LR, Lucente V, Kohn N. Thoracic kyphosis and the prevalence of advanced uterine prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:605-609.
30. Mattox TF, Lucente V, McIntyre P, Miklos JR, Tomezsko J. Abnormal spinal curvature and its relationship to pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:1381-1384.
31. Winans HM. Anemia in the aged (Syndrome of kyphosis, gastric hernia, and anemia). Texas J Med 1938;34:422-423.
32. Hansson KG. Body mechanics in geriatrics. J Am Geriatrics Soc 1954;2:429-433.
33. Lennon J, Shealy N, Cady RK, Matta W, Cox R, Simpson WF. Postural and respiratory
34. Weiss HR. The effect of an exercise program on vital capacity and rib mobility in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1991;16:88-93.
35. Riskind J, Gotay C. Physical posture: Could it have regulatory of feedback effects on motivation and emotion? Motivation and Emotion 1982;6:273-298.
36. Keller TS, Harrison DE, Colloca CJ, Harrison DD, Janik TJ. Prediction of osteoporotic spinal deformity. Spine 2003;28:455-462.
37. Kado DM, Huang MH, Barrett-Connor E, Greendale GA. Hyperkyphotic posture and poor physical functional ability in older community-dwelling men and women: the bernardo study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2005;60:633-637.
38. Freeman JT. Posture in the aging and aged body. JAMA 1957;165:843-846.
39. Milne JS, Williamson J. A longitudinal study of kyphosis in older people. Age and Ageing 1983;12:225-233.
40. Cutler WB, Friedmann E, Genovese-Stone E. Prevalence of kyphosis in a healthy sample of pre- and postmenopausal women. Am J Phys Med Rehab 1993;72:219-225.
41. Anderson F, Cowan NR. Survival of healthy older people. Br J Prev Soc Med 1976;30:231-232.
42. Kado DM, Huang MH, Karlamangla AS, Barrett-Connor E, Greendale GA. Hyperkyphotic posture predicts mortality in older community-dwelling men and women: a prospective study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:1662-1667.