Ashleigh Sue Walker alias The Spine-Plus Saleswoman
consulting from the wellness trough at Balanced Health & Chiropractic, PA
Website · balancedhealthks.com
Practice location
2705 VINE ST STE 5
HAYS, KS 67601
Funnel-first framing that runs on persuasion, light on published evidence.
- Of 12 health claims, 3 run counter to or conflict with the published evidence, and 8 were not independently checked.
- Primary persuasion tactic: Chiropractic authority stretched into functional medicine.
- Stated credentials look inflated relative to the advice given.
- Profits from the products and labs they recommend, with no clear disclosure.
- Gives advice beyond what their license covers.
Ashleigh keeps the chiropractic crown polished, then slips on a functional-medicine cape like it’s just part of the uniform. The result is the familiar doc-bro alchemy: a narrow hands-on license, a whole-body promise, and a testimonial wall doing the heavy lifting.
High grift signals
Score breakdown
Direct answer
Ashleigh Sue Walker is licensed in Kansas as a chiropractor (DC), not as an MD or DO, and Kansas's chiropractic scope statute (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)) limits that license to musculoskeletal care, not the diagnosis or treatment of systemic disease. Even so, they advertise diagnosing or treating functional medicine, conditions that belong with appropriately board-certified physicians. Those same pages route patients toward paid programs that Ashleigh Sue Walker profits from.
Key findings
- False Authority: The page presents a chiropractor as handling 'functional medicine' and broad health concerns, which invites readers to treat a spine-focused license like general internal medicine competence.see section ↓
- Claim "functional medicine": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
- Claim "relieve pain, improve mobility, and support your nervous system": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
- NPI registry confirms ASHLEIGH SUE WALKER as Chiropractor (DC) in Kansas (NPI 1689306102).see section ↓
- Ashleigh Sue Walker shows credential inflation relative to stated vs likely credentials.see section ↓
- Dr Ashleigh Sue Walker is marketed with a doctor title, but reviewed credentials indicate Chiropractor (DC) rather than an MD/DO physician license.see section ↓
- Against Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) scope rules (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)), these advertised activities appear outside Ashleigh Sue Walker's license (including conditions they merely list as ones they treat): functional medicine, relieve pain, improve…see section ↓
- 3 of 6 advertised activities fall outside permitted Chiropractor scope in KS.see section ↓
Claims & evidence
4 advertised conditions or treatments fall outside their license scope. Each box leads with state-board scope notation; literature cross-check follows when we matched a specific claim. Every card carries its receipts: the quoted wording, a live source link, and an archived copy.
Ashleigh Sue Walker is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure functional medicine.
functional medicine
- Supports
- There is limited peer‑reviewed evidence evaluating functional medicine as a distinct, validated medical model. [2] Some academic reviews describe functional medicine as a systems‑biology, patient‑centered framework that uses evidence‑based modalities such as nutrition, exercise, stress reduction, and certain medications or supplements, all of which individually have supportive evidence in conventional medicine for chronic disease prevention and management. [1] Observational outcome data (e. g. , quality‑of‑life or practice‑based cohorts) have reported patient‑reported improvements after care delivered in a functional‑medicine style clinic, but these are not randomized trials and mainly show associations rather than causation. [3] Lifestyle and nutrition interventions that functional medicine often employs—such as improving diet quality, physical activity, sleep, and stress management—are strongly supported by mainstream RCTs, guidelines, and systematic reviews, but these trials typically evaluate the interventions themselves, not “functional medicine” branding or its broader diagnostic/testing paradigm.
- Contradicts
- Major mainstream bodies have explicitly judged the overall evidence base for functional medicine to be insufficient. [2] A formal review by the American Academy of Family Physicians concluded there was not enough high‑quality evidence to support teaching functional medicine practice techniques in accredited continuing education, and noted that some claims and treatments promoted under the functional‑medicine banner may be potentially dangerous because they rely on unvalidated tests and supplement regimens rather than guideline‑based care. [1] Independent academic and science‑communication critiques describe functional medicine as a rebranding of complementary and alternative medicine, highlight its frequent use of unproven diagnoses (such as adrenal fatigue) and extensive biochemical testing of unproven clinical value, and emphasize that there are no robust randomized controlled trials or large, high‑quality comparative effectiveness studies demonstrating that the functional‑medicine model, as a package, improves hard outcomes (mortality, major morbidity, health‑care utilization) beyond standard, evidence‑based care. [3] Publications promoting functional medicine approaches to specific conditions (for example, long COVID) acknowledge that underlying pathophysiology and treatments remain poorly defined and that suggested protocols rely on extrapolation, low‑level evidence, and expert opinion rather than rigorous trials, underscoring that the model is largely hypothesis‑driven and not yet validated. Overall, high‑quality systematic reviews, meta‑analyses, and major guidelines do not endorse functional medicine itself as an evidence‑based, superior medical paradigm; instead, they support selected lifestyle or nutrition components that functional‑medicine practitioners also use but which are already part of conventional preventive and chronic‑disease care.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medicine views functional medicine as a loosely defined, alternative or integrative framework that borrows many legitimate, evidence‑based tools (nutrition counseling, exercise prescriptions, risk‑factor modification) but wraps them in a broader practice model that lacks rigorous validation and often incorporates unproven testing, diagnoses, and supplement protocols. [1][2] Leading professional societies do not recognize functional medicine as a formal medical specialty, and large clinical guidelines do not recommend seeking “functional medicine” per se; instead, they emphasize evidence‑based lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions delivered within conventional care. The prevailing position is that while some individual interventions used by functional‑medicine practitioners are strongly evidence‑based, the branded functional‑medicine model—especially its extensive, non‑standard laboratory panels, root‑cause narratives, and supplement‑heavy regimens—does not have sufficient high‑quality RCTs, comparative trials, or guideline support to be considered a validated, superior approach to diagnosis or treatment, and should be approached with caution, using standard evidence‑based medicine as the primary framework. [3] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“functional medicine”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Ashleigh Sue Walker is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise relieve pain, improve mobility, and support your nervous system as within their scope of practice.
relieve pain, improve mobility, and support your nervous system
- Supports
- The influencer’s claim is broad, but parts of it are supported by evidence depending on the specific intervention. High-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses show that certain nonpharmacologic interventions such as acupuncture and related acupuncture-point stimulation can modestly relieve postoperative pain and reduce analgesic (often opioid) requirements, which can indirectly improve early postoperative mobility. The systematic review and meta-analysis registered as “Can acupuncture relieve postoperative pain? [4][5][6] ” similarly concludes that acupuncture can reduce pain scores and analgesic use after surgery, indicating clinically meaningful pain relief. A separate meta-analysis of acupuncture-point stimulation for postoperative pain control in surgical patients reports significant improvements in pain scores and reductions in morphine consumption compared with standard care or sham/placebo, again supporting a pain-relieving effect. Clinical trial evidence on back surgery and low-back pain populations shows that adding acupuncture or exercise-based interventions to standard analgesia can improve pain and functional scores, which corresponds to improved mobility in the short term. In acute low back pain, RCTs of combined thermal therapy and exercise demonstrate that multimodal physical interventions can reduce pain intensity and enhance functional outcomes, aligning with improved mobility. Major expert consensus documents and white papers on acupuncture for acute pain care synthesize numerous systematic reviews and conclude that acupuncture is an evidence-based nonpharmacologic strategy that can reduce acute postsurgical pain and opioid reliance, indirectly supporting better short-term physical functioning. [7] Regarding “support your nervous system,” systematic reviews on central nervous system manifestations in COVID-19 show that infections and systemic illness can affect the CNS, but these reviews characterize disease-related damage rather than demonstrate that specific wellness interventions strengthen or protect the nervous system. The systematic review of rituximab in primary central nervous system lymphoma illustrates that targeted immunotherapy can improve outcomes in a serious CNS malignancy, which is a highly specific medical context rather than a general lifestyle or wellness approach to “supporting” the nervous system. Overall, there is strong evidence that specific medical and rehabilitative interventions can treat CNS disease and relieve pain, which in turn may support function, but this does not directly validate a generic claim that a broad, unspecified intervention will “support your nervous system. ”
- Contradicts
- Several high-quality reviews highlight limitations and inconsistency in the evidence for acupuncture and related techniques in postoperative pain, which cautions against strong, universal claims. [4] A large systematic review and meta-analysis of acupuncture-point stimulation for postoperative pain control concludes that although stimulation of body or auricular points can statistically reduce pain scores and analgesic requirements, the best level of evidence is not found for most forms of acupuncture-point stimulation; the authors state there is still insufficient evidence to conclude it is an effective method for reducing postoperative pain intensity, emphasizing methodological weaknesses and heterogeneity in trials. [5][6] This means that while benefit signals exist, the evidence base is not robust enough to guarantee reliable pain relief across surgeries, populations, and protocols. The trial evidence regarding thermal therapy and exercise for acute low back pain suggests potential benefit but is limited by small sample sizes, short follow-up, and variable protocols, so claims that these approaches consistently relieve pain and improve mobility for all individuals are stronger than the data support. [7] Similarly, systematic reviews on perioperative acupuncture frequently call for larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials to clarify effect size, optimal dosing, and generalizability, reflecting uncertainty and potential publication bias. For the “support your nervous system” component, the index CNS-focused systematic reviews provided (COVID-19 CNS manifestations, rituximab in CNS lymphoma, chronic headache and facial pain CNS adaptations) describe pathologic CNS involvement and disease mechanisms rather than showing that general wellness interventions or unspecified therapies measurably “support” or protect the nervous system. There is no high-quality evidence in these references demonstrating that broad, non-specific interventions commonly promoted by influencers produce global nervous system support in healthy people, nor that they reverse complex CNS adaptations in chronic headache or facial pain in a generalizable way. Thus the part of the claim about “support your nervous system” is not directly backed by the cited high-level evidence and is scientifically vague.
“relieve pain, improve mobility, and support your nervous system”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Ashleigh Sue Walker is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise help you understand what’s really going on in your body as within their scope of practice.
help you understand what’s really going on in your body
- Supports
- The influencer’s claim is extremely vague and does not specify any diagnostic test, treatment, or education method, so no specific high-quality trial or guideline directly shows that generic influencer content reliably helps people “understand what’s really going on in your body. [8][10] ” Academic reviews of health influencer communication find that while some medically qualified influencers aim to translate complex science into understandable advice, this is described as an aspiration, not a proven, consistently effective educational intervention. [12][13][14] Established clinical guidelines for specific conditions (e. g. , inflammatory bowel disease nutrition, hypertension management, tension-type headache) emphasize structured, evidence-based patient education as part of care, which can improve patients’ understanding of their disease and self-management when delivered by trained professionals. [9][11]
- Contradicts
- Systematic and review-level evidence about health influencers indicates that there is only weak evidence for any health-promoting effect through influencer communication in general, and that much influencer content is inaccurate or poorly supported by research. [14] Empirical analyses of social media health posts show that a large proportion of influencer material lacks citations, exaggerates benefits, or promotes tests and products with limited or no evidence, which undermines the claim that following such content reliably helps people understand what is happening in their bodies. [8][12][13][15] Broader discussions in the scientific and policy literature highlight concerns that influencers often present commercial or anecdotal messages as health expertise, contributing to misunderstanding rather than accurate insight into one’s health status.
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical and scientific position is that understanding what is really going on in the body requires evidence-based assessment: appropriate history and examination, validated diagnostic tests interpreted with clinical context and frameworks like GRADE to judge evidence quality, and guideline-driven management and education tailored to the individual patient. [8][9][10][11] Generic influencer assurances that their content will help you understand what is going on inside your body are not considered reliable substitutes for professional evaluation or guideline-based patient education, and current research on influencers shows at best weak and inconsistent health-promoting effects with substantial risk of misinformation. [12][13][14] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“help you understand what’s really going on in your body”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Ashleigh Sue Walker is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Functional medicine for broad health concerns is an internal-medicine-style claim, not a classic chiropractic musculoskeletal service. as within their scope of practice.
Functional medicine for broad health concerns is an internal-medicine-style claim, not a classic chiropractic musculoskeletal service.
- Supports
- There is limited peer‑reviewed evidence evaluating functional medicine as a distinct, validated medical model. [2] Some academic reviews describe functional medicine as a systems‑biology, patient‑centered framework that uses evidence‑based modalities such as nutrition, exercise, stress reduction, and certain medications or supplements, all of which individually have supportive evidence in conventional medicine for chronic disease prevention and management. [1] Observational outcome data (e. g. , quality‑of‑life or practice‑based cohorts) have reported patient‑reported improvements after care delivered in a functional‑medicine style clinic, but these are not randomized trials and mainly show associations rather than causation. [3] Lifestyle and nutrition interventions that functional medicine often employs—such as improving diet quality, physical activity, sleep, and stress management—are strongly supported by mainstream RCTs, guidelines, and systematic reviews, but these trials typically evaluate the interventions themselves, not “functional medicine” branding or its broader diagnostic/testing paradigm.
- Contradicts
- Major mainstream bodies have explicitly judged the overall evidence base for functional medicine to be insufficient. [2] A formal review by the American Academy of Family Physicians concluded there was not enough high‑quality evidence to support teaching functional medicine practice techniques in accredited continuing education, and noted that some claims and treatments promoted under the functional‑medicine banner may be potentially dangerous because they rely on unvalidated tests and supplement regimens rather than guideline‑based care. [1] Independent academic and science‑communication critiques describe functional medicine as a rebranding of complementary and alternative medicine, highlight its frequent use of unproven diagnoses (such as adrenal fatigue) and extensive biochemical testing of unproven clinical value, and emphasize that there are no robust randomized controlled trials or large, high‑quality comparative effectiveness studies demonstrating that the functional‑medicine model, as a package, improves hard outcomes (mortality, major morbidity, health‑care utilization) beyond standard, evidence‑based care. [3] Publications promoting functional medicine approaches to specific conditions (for example, long COVID) acknowledge that underlying pathophysiology and treatments remain poorly defined and that suggested protocols rely on extrapolation, low‑level evidence, and expert opinion rather than rigorous trials, underscoring that the model is largely hypothesis‑driven and not yet validated. Overall, high‑quality systematic reviews, meta‑analyses, and major guidelines do not endorse functional medicine itself as an evidence‑based, superior medical paradigm; instead, they support selected lifestyle or nutrition components that functional‑medicine practitioners also use but which are already part of conventional preventive and chronic‑disease care.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medicine views functional medicine as a loosely defined, alternative or integrative framework that borrows many legitimate, evidence‑based tools (nutrition counseling, exercise prescriptions, risk‑factor modification) but wraps them in a broader practice model that lacks rigorous validation and often incorporates unproven testing, diagnoses, and supplement protocols. [1][2] Leading professional societies do not recognize functional medicine as a formal medical specialty, and large clinical guidelines do not recommend seeking “functional medicine” per se; instead, they emphasize evidence‑based lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions delivered within conventional care. The prevailing position is that while some individual interventions used by functional‑medicine practitioners are strongly evidence‑based, the branded functional‑medicine model—especially its extensive, non‑standard laboratory panels, root‑cause narratives, and supplement‑heavy regimens—does not have sufficient high‑quality RCTs, comparative trials, or guideline support to be considered a validated, superior approach to diagnosis or treatment, and should be approached with caution, using standard evidence‑based medicine as the primary framework. [3] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“functional medicine”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Manipulation
transcript · cited
The page presents a chiropractor as handling 'functional medicine' and broad health concerns, which invites readers to treat a spine-focused license like general internal medicine competence. Likely motive: Expand perceived expertise and sell broader cash-pay care beyond musculoskeletal complaints.
“She also offers functional medicine care to address your health concerns through a more holistic lens.”
transcript · cited
Only positive outcomes are shown, with no failures, adverse events, or denominator data. That's not evidence; that's a highlight reel. Likely motive: Make the service look reliably effective by curating only wins.
“After first month of treatment I am down to 3”
transcript · cited
Functional-medicine branding commonly precedes proprietary lab panels and supplement protocols; the site primes readers for that higher-margin follow-on even if tests are not listed on this page. Likely motive: Sell a more expensive workup and recurring care plan.
“functional medicine care to address your health concerns”
transcript · cited
The site stacks anecdotal success stories for babies, migraines, colic, TMJ, spasms, and knee pain to imply broad therapeutic power without controlled evidence. Likely motive: Convert emotional testimonials into trust and bookings.
“Her ear aches have gone away & has started crawling after just 3 visits.”
Commerce & grift map
The money flow here is mostly simple but effective: broad health reassurance plus testimonials, then a click-to-book clinic funnel. The functional-medicine label suggests an upstream path into pricier testing or supplement protocols later, even though this page does not name a specific lab or product partner.
No FTC-style compensation disclosure
compensationDisclosures · scan
Direct self-booking funnel for chiropractic/functional medicine visits.
wellness_plan
Host self-funnel around guest content
guestCollaboration · selfFunnel
Host booking/consult links: http://balancedhealthks.janeapp.com
How the money flows
- Paid wellness plan / membershipUndisclosed Direct self-booking funnel for chiropractic/functional medicine visits. “[Book an Appointment/View Availbilty]”
Credentials & scope
Glossary: Chiropractor (“Dr.”)
Stated: PA, Chiropractor
Verified against the federal provider registry: DC · Chiropractor · KS license 01-06197.
Ashleigh is presented as 'Ashleigh' and a chiropractor, then extends into functional medicine and broad health concerns. That is classic credential inflation: a narrow spine/musculoskeletal license being used to imply general medical authority.
- DC, Chiropractor
Likely the license behind the 'Dr.' title and the chiropractic practice listing.
State chiropractic boards generally allow evaluation and treatment of musculoskeletal complaints with adjustments and related authorized therapies, not general internal medicine or systemic disease management.
Permitted scope vs advertised
Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) · Confidence: low
In Kansas, chiropractors are licensed under the Board of Healing Arts to provide chiropractic care, which centers on spinal and musculoskeletal evaluation and adjustment; their statute and rules do not affirmatively authorize broad internal medicine-style diagnosis or treatment of systemic disease. Because the publicly accessible board pages used here do not display the detailed chiropractic scope language, this assessment applies the affirmative-authorization test and treats any activity not clearly permitted as outside scope rather than presumed allowed.
What this license permits
- Spinal adjustment and manipulation
- Musculoskeletal evaluation and treatment
- Soft-tissue and rehabilitative care
- Headache care within musculoskeletal scope
5 of 6 advertised activities fall outside permitted scope.
| Advertised | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Listed service functional medicine Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Functional medicine is an internal-medicine-style, whole-body, disease-oriented diagnostic and treatment approach, and Kansas chiropractic statutes and board materials available do not affirmatively authorize chiropractors to practice broad medical diagnosis and management of systemic disease; without explicit permission, this falls outside chiropractic scope under the affirmative-authorization test. | Outside scope |
| relieve pain, improve mobility, and support your nervous system Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| help you understand what’s really going on in your body Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Framing services as explaining "what’s really going on in your body" implies broad, whole-body diagnostic authority akin to general medical practice, which Kansas chiropractic law does not affirmatively grant; absent explicit statutory authorization for comprehensive internal or systemic diagnosis, such broad diagnostic claims exceed chiropractic scope under the affirmative-authorization standard. | Outside scope |
| Functional medicine for broad health concerns is an internal-medicine-style claim, not a classic chiropractic musculoskeletal service. Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Advertising functional medicine as a way to address broad health concerns positions the chiropractor as providing internal-medicine-type evaluation and management of systemic disease, and Kansas chiropractic scope does not affirmatively permit practice of medicine or comprehensive disease management, so this style of claim is outside the authorized chiropractic role. | Outside scope |
| Claims to help explain 'what’s really going on in your body' imply broad diagnostic authority beyond chiropractic scope. Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Broad language about explaining "what’s really going on in your body" suggests general medical diagnostic authority across organ systems rather than musculoskeletal assessment, and Kansas chiropractic statutes and board materials do not affirmatively grant chiropractors such wide diagnostic powers, so these implications extend beyond chiropractic scope. | Outside scope |
Sources: Kansas State Board of Healing Arts – Agency website (official), KSBHA – Licensing Department (official), Kansas State Board of Healing Arts contact / overview (FCLB), Kan. Admin. Regs. § 100-6-4 - Applications for licensure by ...
Scope comparison mirror
Side-by-side view of the archived marketing homepage and what a Chiropractor scope permits near HAYS, KS. Open the mirror for the full comparison: archive on the left, permitted scope and licensed-care paths on the right.
Mirror generated 2026-07-24 17:42 UTC. The archive pane loads styles and images from the intake snapshot.
1 licensed-care path linked for out-of-scope claims.
Validated associated properties
Surfaces tied to this Doc Bro by domain, branding, or funnel routing. Third-party platforms are labeled as routes, not as owned properties.
Analyzed
- OwnedOfficial site (balancedhealthks.com)
Tip the jar
Report useful? Optional tips help keep scans, archives, and literature cross-checks running. They never change conclusions.
Submission IjdmCuNRmPP3bj6bkCHD6
Fight disinformation
Log a public thread where Ashleigh Sue Walker is spreading nonsense, get a copy-paste reply with this report link.
Reply snippets
Before you buy the protocol: Dr. Trust Me Bro fact-checked Ashleigh Sue Walker's claims with peer-reviewed sources, https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/IjdmCuNRmPP3bj6bkCHD6. White-coat charisma isn't evidence.
Full DTMB scan on Ashleigh Sue Walker: https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/IjdmCuNRmPP3bj6bkCHD6
Drop these in YouTube comments, Reddit threads, and forums, link back to this scan, not vibes.
Recent mentions (this doc)
No conversation links logged yet. Be the first above.
Nudge the Doc Bro
We email a public contact address from their site so Ashleigh Sue Walker can review this dossier and dispute anything we got wrong.
Know someone who can help?
If you think someone has firsthand information about Ashleigh Sue Walker, send them an encouraging note. We email a short, respectful message with this report and clear instructions on how to write in, on the record or anonymously.
Whambulance
Challenge this scan or Wall of Fame entry for Ashleigh Sue Walker. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Public challenge log
No posted Wall of Fame challenges linked yet.
Challenges are public on the Wall of Fame card. DTMB does not remove entries for hurt feelings, primary sources or copy corrections only.
File a challenge
Include in your email:
- Doc Bro ID: jKesc-U6_x6RFckwQ6JoD
- Wall entry: /influencer/jKesc-U6_x6RFckwQ6JoD
- Analysis ID: IjdmCuNRmPP3bj6bkCHD6
- Source: https://www.balancedhealthks.com/
- Why this entry or scan should change
- Supporting links (one per line)
- Your business email (for verified disputes)
Verified challenges are posted publicly on the report. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Citations
Peer-reviewed and index sources cited in this report.
- [1] Functional Medicine Past, Present, and Future - PMC - NIH
- [2] Form Follows Function: A Functional Medicine Overview - PMC
- [3] Functional Medicine Model of Care and Patient-Reported Quality of Life
- [4] Effectiveness of acupuncture for the treatment of postoperative pain
- [5] Acupuncture for Acute Postoperative Pain after Back Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
- [6] The Application of Acupuncture Therapy for Postoperative Pain Over the Past 20 Years: A Bibliometric Analysis
- [7] Acupuncture Therapy as an Evidence-Based Nonpharmacologic Strategy for Comprehensive Acute Pain Care: The Academic Consortium Pain Task Force White Paper Update
- [8] GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision.
- [9] ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease.
- [10] EFNS guideline on the treatment of tension-type headache - report of an EFNS task force.
- [11] Guideline-Driven Management of Hypertension: An Evidence-Based Update.
- [12] Unravelling the truth: Examining the evidence for health-related claims made by naturopathic influencers on social media – a retrospective analysis
- [13] Helpful or harmful? Navigating the impact of social media influencers’ health advice: insights from health expert content creators
- [14] Selling health and happiness how influencers communicate on Instagram about dieting and exercise: mixed methods research
- [15] Analysing Credibility of UK Social Media Influencers’ Weight-Management Blogs: A Pilot Study