A review and methodologic critique of the literature refuting whiplash syndrome

Michael D. Freeman, Arthur C. Croft, Annette M. Rossignol, David S. Weaver, Mark Reiser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

125 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The validity of whiplash syndrome has been a source of debate in the medical literature for many years. Some authors have published articles suggesting that whiplash injuries are impossible at certain collision speeds; others have stated that the problem is psychological, or is reigned as a means to obtain secondary financial gain. These articles contradict the majority of the literature, which shows that whiplash injuries and their sequelae are a highly prevalent problem that affects a significant proportion of the population. The authors of the current literature critique reviewed the biomedical and engineering literature relating to whiplash syndrome, searching for articles that refuted the validity of whiplash injuries. Twenty articles containing nine distinct statements refuting the validity of whiplash syndrome were found that fit the inclusion criteria. The methodology described in these articles was evaluated critically to determine if the authors' observations regarding the validity of whiplash syndrome were scientifically sound. The authors of the current critique found that all of the articles contained significant methodologic flaws with regard to their respective authors' statements refuting the validity of whiplash syndrome. The most frequently found flaws were inadequate study size, nonrepresentative study sample, nonrepresentative crash conditions (for crash tests), and inappropriate study design. As a result of the current literature review, it was determined that there is no epidemiologic or scientific basis in the literature for the following statements: whiplash injuries do not lead to chronic pain, rear impact collisions that do not result in vehicle damage are unlikely to cause injury, and whiplash trauma is biomechanically comparable with common movements of daily living.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)86-96
Number of pages11
JournalSpine
Volume24
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1999

Fingerprint

Whiplash Injuries
Biomedical Engineering
Chronic Pain
Psychology
Wounds and Injuries
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

A review and methodologic critique of the literature refuting whiplash syndrome. / Freeman, Michael D.; Croft, Arthur C.; Rossignol, Annette M.; Weaver, David S.; Reiser, Mark.

In: Spine, Vol. 24, No. 1, 01.01.1999, p. 86-96.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Freeman, Michael D. ; Croft, Arthur C. ; Rossignol, Annette M. ; Weaver, David S. ; Reiser, Mark. / A review and methodologic critique of the literature refuting whiplash syndrome. In: Spine. 1999 ; Vol. 24, No. 1. pp. 86-96.
@article{90a230f0010040f48ff59767fae5fbde,
title = "A review and methodologic critique of the literature refuting whiplash syndrome",
abstract = "The validity of whiplash syndrome has been a source of debate in the medical literature for many years. Some authors have published articles suggesting that whiplash injuries are impossible at certain collision speeds; others have stated that the problem is psychological, or is reigned as a means to obtain secondary financial gain. These articles contradict the majority of the literature, which shows that whiplash injuries and their sequelae are a highly prevalent problem that affects a significant proportion of the population. The authors of the current literature critique reviewed the biomedical and engineering literature relating to whiplash syndrome, searching for articles that refuted the validity of whiplash injuries. Twenty articles containing nine distinct statements refuting the validity of whiplash syndrome were found that fit the inclusion criteria. The methodology described in these articles was evaluated critically to determine if the authors' observations regarding the validity of whiplash syndrome were scientifically sound. The authors of the current critique found that all of the articles contained significant methodologic flaws with regard to their respective authors' statements refuting the validity of whiplash syndrome. The most frequently found flaws were inadequate study size, nonrepresentative study sample, nonrepresentative crash conditions (for crash tests), and inappropriate study design. As a result of the current literature review, it was determined that there is no epidemiologic or scientific basis in the literature for the following statements: whiplash injuries do not lead to chronic pain, rear impact collisions that do not result in vehicle damage are unlikely to cause injury, and whiplash trauma is biomechanically comparable with common movements of daily living.",
author = "Freeman, {Michael D.} and Croft, {Arthur C.} and Rossignol, {Annette M.} and Weaver, {David S.} and Mark Reiser",
year = "1999",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00007632-199901010-00022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "86--96",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A review and methodologic critique of the literature refuting whiplash syndrome

AU - Freeman, Michael D.

AU - Croft, Arthur C.

AU - Rossignol, Annette M.

AU - Weaver, David S.

AU - Reiser, Mark

PY - 1999/1/1

Y1 - 1999/1/1

N2 - The validity of whiplash syndrome has been a source of debate in the medical literature for many years. Some authors have published articles suggesting that whiplash injuries are impossible at certain collision speeds; others have stated that the problem is psychological, or is reigned as a means to obtain secondary financial gain. These articles contradict the majority of the literature, which shows that whiplash injuries and their sequelae are a highly prevalent problem that affects a significant proportion of the population. The authors of the current literature critique reviewed the biomedical and engineering literature relating to whiplash syndrome, searching for articles that refuted the validity of whiplash injuries. Twenty articles containing nine distinct statements refuting the validity of whiplash syndrome were found that fit the inclusion criteria. The methodology described in these articles was evaluated critically to determine if the authors' observations regarding the validity of whiplash syndrome were scientifically sound. The authors of the current critique found that all of the articles contained significant methodologic flaws with regard to their respective authors' statements refuting the validity of whiplash syndrome. The most frequently found flaws were inadequate study size, nonrepresentative study sample, nonrepresentative crash conditions (for crash tests), and inappropriate study design. As a result of the current literature review, it was determined that there is no epidemiologic or scientific basis in the literature for the following statements: whiplash injuries do not lead to chronic pain, rear impact collisions that do not result in vehicle damage are unlikely to cause injury, and whiplash trauma is biomechanically comparable with common movements of daily living.

AB - The validity of whiplash syndrome has been a source of debate in the medical literature for many years. Some authors have published articles suggesting that whiplash injuries are impossible at certain collision speeds; others have stated that the problem is psychological, or is reigned as a means to obtain secondary financial gain. These articles contradict the majority of the literature, which shows that whiplash injuries and their sequelae are a highly prevalent problem that affects a significant proportion of the population. The authors of the current literature critique reviewed the biomedical and engineering literature relating to whiplash syndrome, searching for articles that refuted the validity of whiplash injuries. Twenty articles containing nine distinct statements refuting the validity of whiplash syndrome were found that fit the inclusion criteria. The methodology described in these articles was evaluated critically to determine if the authors' observations regarding the validity of whiplash syndrome were scientifically sound. The authors of the current critique found that all of the articles contained significant methodologic flaws with regard to their respective authors' statements refuting the validity of whiplash syndrome. The most frequently found flaws were inadequate study size, nonrepresentative study sample, nonrepresentative crash conditions (for crash tests), and inappropriate study design. As a result of the current literature review, it was determined that there is no epidemiologic or scientific basis in the literature for the following statements: whiplash injuries do not lead to chronic pain, rear impact collisions that do not result in vehicle damage are unlikely to cause injury, and whiplash trauma is biomechanically comparable with common movements of daily living.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032944285&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032944285&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00007632-199901010-00022

DO - 10.1097/00007632-199901010-00022

M3 - Article

C2 - 9921598

AN - SCOPUS:0032944285

VL - 24

SP - 86

EP - 96

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 0362-2436

IS - 1

ER -