Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, 2014. / Background: Practitioners are required to practice evidence-based medicine. The availability of large volumes of information make this practice style difficult for the practitioner. However, a systematic review allows literature to be organised, rated and allows current, abbreviated research resources for practitioner in clinical practice. Objectives: The effectiveness of the Gonstead Chiropractic Technique (GCT) was evaluated to present current evidence available for various conditions for which the GCT is utilised in clinical practice. Thus, the aim of the study was to systematically review, collate and evaluate the research evidence in the literature to determine the effectiveness of the GCT. Method: A literature search was conducted, based on key terms including: Gonstead and manual, Gonstead and technique, and Gonstead and manipulative/manipulation. Databases searched were: CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Metalib, Pubmed, Science Direct, Springerlink and Summons. The articles were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, after which secondary hand and reference searches were done. Thereafter the articles were reviewed by six independent reviewers. Appropriate scales were used to rate the methodological rigour of each article (e.g. PEDro). The results were analysed and ranked, before these outcomes were classified and contextualised in the clinical conditions on which the included studies were based. Results: A total of 477 citations were identified; after screening 26 English articles remained. Two articles were added through the secondary hand-search. Limited to no evidence existed for the effectiveness of GCT for neck pain / headache / face pain and limited evidence existed for gynaecological issues, scoliosis, neurological disorders, fractures, blood pressure and physiological presentations. Consensus was evident for gynaecological issues, neurological disorders, fractures (with the exception of the undiagnosed fracture) and physiological presentations, whereas the neck pain / headache / face pain and scoliosis were conflicting. Conclusion: Limited evidence shows a need for future studies with stringent methodological rigour, so as to investigate the appropriateness / inappropriateness of the use of the GCT. The lack of evidence for GCT may compromise appropriate informed consent and treatment. Therefore practitioners are encouraged to use appropriate and validated tools to measure the patient’s clinical progress

Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, 2014. / Background: Practitioners are required to practice evidence-based medicine. The availability of large volumes of information make this practice style difficult for the practitioner. However, a systematic review allows literature to be organised, rated and allows current, abbreviated research resources for practitioner in clinical practice. Objectives: The effectiveness of the Gonstead Chiropractic Technique (GCT) was evaluated to present current evidence available for various conditions for which the GCT is utilised in clinical practice. Thus, the aim of the study was to systematically review, collate and evaluate the research evidence in the literature to determine the effectiveness of the GCT. Method: A literature search was conducted, based on key terms including: Gonstead and manual, Gonstead and technique, and Gonstead and manipulative/manipulation. Databases searched were: CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Metalib, Pubmed, Science Direct, Springerlink and Summons. The articles were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, after which secondary hand and reference searches were done. Thereafter the articles were reviewed by six independent reviewers. Appropriate scales were used to rate the methodological rigour of each article (e.g. PEDro). The results were analysed and ranked, before these outcomes were classified and contextualised in the clinical conditions on which the included studies were based. Results: A total of 477 citations were identified; after screening 26 English articles remained. Two articles were added through the secondary hand-search. Limited to no evidence existed for the effectiveness of GCT for neck pain / headache / face pain and limited evidence existed for gynaecological issues, scoliosis, neurological disorders, fractures, blood pressure and physiological presentations. Consensus was evident for gynaecological issues, neurological disorders, fractures (with the exception of the undiagnosed fracture) and physiological presentations, whereas the neck pain / headache / face pain and scoliosis were conflicting. Conclusion: Limited evidence shows a need for future studies with stringent methodological rigour, so as to investigate the appropriateness / inappropriateness of the use of the GCT. The lack of evidence for GCT may compromise appropriate informed consent and treatment. Therefore practitioners are encouraged to use appropriate and validated tools to measure the patient’s clinical progress