Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Statistically which profession has caused more patient injuries, chiropractors or physical therapiest.
Executive summary
Available sources do not provide a single, directly comparable national statistic that answers which profession — chiropractors or physical therapists — has caused more patient injuries overall; reporting instead gives study-specific or occupation-specific figures (for example, a retrospective study estimated severe adverse events from spinal manipulation at <1 per 100,000 SMT sessions) [1]. Other sources discuss adverse-event rates, lawsuits, or work-related injuries within one profession but do not present side‑by‑side national incidence or comparable denominators for both professions [2] [3].
1. The headline numbers you’ll see — and why they can’t settle this question
Some webpages and compilations claim high proportions of “chiropractic injuries” or even large increased risks versus primary care, but these figures come from heterogeneous mixes of studies, case reports and secondary summaries that do not use consistent denominators (visits, patients, or procedures) or control for who is delivering spinal manipulative therapy (chiropractors, some physical therapists, osteopaths) [2] [1]. The Scientific Reports analysis provides a specific estimate for severe adverse events from spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) — hypothesizing fewer than 1 severe (grade ≥3) adverse event per 100,000 SMT sessions — but it studies SMT recipients rather than comparing entire chiropractic versus physical‑therapy workforces or patient panels [1]. Because different sources measure different outcomes (minor vs. severe events, treatment sessions vs. patients vs. lawsuits), none of the gathered reporting gives a definitive, apples‑to‑apples comparison [1] [2].
2. What the best peer‑reviewed data say about chiropractic adverse events
A peer‑reviewed retrospective analysis in Scientific Reports quantified severe adverse events tied to spinal manipulative therapy and framed the hypothesis that severe events occur at a rate below 1 per 100,000 SMT sessions; the paper focuses on incidence and predictors of grade ≥3 adverse events among SMT recipients, noting SMT is used by various professions though chiropractors are predominant users worldwide [1]. This study speaks to the rarity of severe events in SMT recipients but does not translate directly into a total‑injury tally per profession because it measures session‑level severe events and does not compare overall injury rates across professions [1].
3. Non‑peer‑reviewed sources and compilations that allege higher chiropractic risk
Aggregated lists and statistic pages (often non‑peer‑reviewed) report larger numbers — for example, claims that chiropractic adjustments cause a large share of iatrogenic injury or a specific percentage increase versus primary care — but these pages typically draw from older studies, case reports and legal filings and do not standardize measurement methods [2]. The AmbitionsABA compilation asserts a 40% increased risk versus primary care and attributes a large share of iatrogenic injuries to chiropractic adjustments, yet the underlying methods and comparators are not presented in a way that would allow rigorous profession‑level comparison [2].
4. What’s available about injuries experienced by practitioners and what that implies
A survey‑based study reported work‑related injuries among chiropractors — e.g., 40.1% of surveyed chiropractors reported experiencing work‑related injuries themselves — but that measures clinician occupational injury, not patient harm, and thus is not a metric for patient safety comparison with physical therapists [3]. Such practitioner‑focused findings illustrate that manual therapies carry risks to both patients and providers, but they do not answer which profession causes more patient injuries [3].
5. Differences in scope of practice and procedures — important context for risk
Chiropractors frequently perform high‑velocity spinal manipulation as a central treatment; physical therapists more often emphasize exercise, education and varied manual techniques, and some PTs also perform manipulative techniques [4] [5]. Because certain procedures (notably cervical spinal manipulation) have different perceived risk profiles, comparing overall injury counts without adjusting for the types and frequencies of procedures each profession performs will mislead. The Scientific Reports paper explicitly notes SMT is used across disciplines, so attributing all SMT‑related events to chiropractors would overstate a single profession’s share [1] [4].
6. Bottom line and what would be needed to answer your question definitively
Current reporting in the provided sources does not supply a direct comparison of patient‑injury incidence for chiropractors versus physical therapists; available studies either focus on SMT session‑level severe events [1], compile diverse claims without standardized denominators [2], or report work‑related injuries among clinicians [3]. To answer your query definitively would require comparable, population‑level data that standardizes denominators (for example injuries per 100,000 patient visits or per 100,000 patients treated) and separates procedures (SMT vs. other interventions) and provider type — a dataset and methodology not present in the supplied materials (not found in current reporting).
If you want, I can (a) search for peer‑reviewed comparative incidence studies or regulatory databases that log adverse events by provider type, or (b) assemble a table of the different measures (sessions, patients, lawsuits, practitioner injuries) reported in these sources to show why they’re not directly comparable. Which would you prefer?