Leslie Stewart alias The Root-Cause Chiro
Website · drlesliechiropractic.com
Practice location
348 Prior
Ave N Saint Paul, MN 55104
Funnel-first framing that runs on persuasion, light on published evidence.
- Of 12 health claims, 11 run counter to or conflict with the published evidence, and 1 was not independently checked.
- Primary persuasion tactic: Free consult lead capture.
- 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.
Leslie Stewart is serving up the evergreen wellness-clinic potion: spinal adjustments on the front end, then a little functional-medicine grandeur to make the whole thing sound like internal medicine with better posture. The grift is elegant in its restraint—just enough disease language to look profound, just enough scope creep to keep the consult calendar warm.
High grift signals
Score breakdown
Direct answer
Dr. Leslie Stewart is reviewed as a chiropractor (DC), not an MD/DO physician. Dr. Trust Me Bro analyzed Dr. Leslie Stewart's claim that "create a customized treatment plan that supports the body's natural healing processes" using text from the website, then cross-checked it against academic sources. Peer-reviewed literature indicates the claim is not supported by peer-reviewed evidence: The claim is too generic to be directly tested against the listed papers because it does not specify a disease, intervention, or measurable outcome. None of the listed papers directly evaluate the broad promise of a customized treatment plan that supports the body's natural healing processes; they are unrelated trials or feasibility studies in specific populations and conditions. In mainstream clinical practice, individualized treatment planning is a standard concept across medicine, and many guidelines recommend tailoring care to the patient’s condition, comorbidities, and preferences, which is broadly consistent with the idea of customization. The claim is phrased in a promotional and non-specific way, so it cannot be validated as a medical outcome claim. There is no high-quality evidence in the listed papers showing that a customized treatment plan, by itself, reliably enhances the body’s natural healing processes across conditions. Because the wording is vague, it also lacks falsifiable endpoints such as symptom reduction, functional improvement, or biologic healing markers. Academic evidence generally supports condition-specific individualized care, not an all-purpose healing claim. The mainstream medical view is that treatment should often be individualized to the patient and condition, but broad claims that a customized plan will support the body's natural healing processes are too vague to be considered evidence-based without specifying the diagnosis, intervention, and outcome. In other words, personalization is standard practice, but this marketing-style statement is not a validated clinical claim on its own. Often searched as Dr Leslie Stewart.
Key findings
- Sales Funnel Motive: The page nudges visitors into a free consult funnel, a classic first step toward converting curiosity into paid care plans or add-on services.see section ↓
- Claim "create a customized treatment plan that supports the body's natural healing processes": not supported by peer-reviewed evidence.see section ↓
- Claim "determining and treating the underlying causes of disease": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
- NPI registry confirms LESLIE ANNE STEWART as Chiropractor (DC) in Minnesota (NPI 1528149010).see section ↓
- Dr. Leslie Stewart shows credential inflation relative to stated vs likely credentials.see section ↓
- Against Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners scope rules (Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, Subd. 2), these advertised activities appear outside Dr. Leslie Stewart's license (including conditions they merely list as ones they treat): functional medicine, determining and treating the underlying…see section ↓
- 7 of 14 advertised activities fall outside permitted Chiropractor scope in MN.see section ↓
- Claim "working with individuals of ages from infancy to adulthood, Dr. Leslie has experience sup…": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
Claims & evidence
In their own published words, they present themselves as qualified to treat, or give advice on, 6 conditions or treatments. A chiropractic license covers the spine, joints and muscles, and the scope review placed each one outside it. 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.
Dr. Leslie Stewart is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure functional medicine.
functional medicine
- Supports
- There is moderate-quality evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is about as effective as other recommended therapies (such as standard medical care and physical therapy) for short‑term pain relief and small improvements in function in adults with chronic low back pain. Some randomized controlled trials show clinically meaningful reductions in pain and disability with structured courses of chiropractic spinal manipulation (around 12 sessions over 6 weeks) in chronic non‑specific low back pain, with benefits sustained up to 52 weeks. A Cochrane review and other systematic reviews indicate that for acute and subacute low back pain, combined chiropractic interventions can slightly improve pain and disability in the short and medium term compared with other treatments, though long‑term differences are minimal. Overall, high‑quality evidence supports chiropractic care as a reasonable option for musculoskeletal spinal pain (especially low back pain), broadly comparable to other conservative treatments.
Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4]
“functional medicine”
Dr. Leslie Stewart is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise determining and treating the underlying causes of disease as within their scope of practice.
determining and treating the underlying causes of disease
- Supports
- High-quality evidence and major guidelines consistently state that modern medicine aims to identify and address underlying causes of disease when known, rather than only treating symptoms. For example, guideline-driven management of hypertension is explicitly built around identifying pathophysiologic drivers such as sustained blood pressure elevation and modifiable risk factors to prevent downstream complications like stroke and myocardial infarction, not simply relieving transient symptoms. Cardiovascular primary prevention strategies are based on determining causal risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, diabetes) and treating them to reduce incident cardiovascular events, as shown in systematic reviews and network meta-analyses of preventive therapies. In inflammatory bowel disease, ESPEN clinical nutrition guidelines emphasize assessing disease activity, malnutrition, and specific deficiencies as underlying contributors to morbidity, and recommend targeted nutritional interventions to modify these drivers rather than using nutrition only for symptom control. ASPEN-FELANPE and related parenteral nutrition guidelines call for determining the underlying causes of inadequate oral/enteral intake (e.g., intestinal failure, severe malabsorption, critical illness) and treating those when possible while using nutrition support as disease-modifying therapy to reduce complications such as infections and poor wound healing. Blood transfusion guidelines similarly stress understanding the underlying etiology of anemia or bleeding (e.g., iron deficiency, bone marrow failure, surgical blood loss) and correcting it, while using transfusion judiciously as supportive care.
- Contradicts
- The broad claim as stated is vague and, taken literally, can overpromise by implying that all or most diseases have clearly determinable and fully treatable single underlying causes, which is not supported by the evidence. Major guidelines for hypertension and cardiovascular prevention acknowledge that many risk factors are multifactorial and chronic, so management often involves lifelong risk reduction rather than definitive cure of a single cause. Conditions like tension-type headache are recognized as having complex and not fully understood pathophysiology; EFNS guidelines therefore focus largely on symptomatic and prophylactic treatment strategies (e.g., simple analgesics, amitriptyline, behavioral measures) rather than on a clearly defined, singular underlying cause that can be eradicated. Nutritional-support guidelines emphasize that in many serious illnesses, nutrition therapy mitigates complications and improves outcomes but does not “cure” the primary disease; for example, parenteral nutrition can be appropriate in irreversible intestinal failure or advanced malignancy where the underlying cause cannot be removed, and the goal is supportive care and complication reduction. Blood transfusion therapy is explicitly described as supportive and not curative for many conditions, used to manage the consequences (e.g., anemia, hypoxia) while separate efforts address or, in some cases, are unable to fully correct the underlying disease. Overall, high-quality evidence shows that while determining and treating underlying causes is a central goal, it is not always possible to identify a single cause, to reverse it, or to fully cure chronic multifactorial diseases, so the claim risks oversimplifying the evidence base.
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical position is that clinicians should, wherever possible, identify and treat underlying causes or key modifiable drivers of disease, while also providing symptomatic and supportive care when causes are unknown, multifactorial, or not fully reversible. Guideline-driven hypertension and cardiovascular prevention management exemplify this by targeting underlying risk factors to reduce long-term events, alongside ongoing risk monitoring and symptomatic management. In chronic and complex conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease, clinical nutrition guidelines integrate cause-directed therapy (e.g., immunomodulation for inflammation) with supportive interventions like tailored nutrition that treat important contributors such as malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies but do not replace disease-modifying pharmacotherapy. Tension-type headache and many functional or chronic pain syndromes illustrate that pathophysiologic mechanisms may be only partially understood, so evidence-based care often focuses on symptom control, prevention of chronification, and risk-factor modification rather than curing a single clearly identified cause. For supportive modalities like transfusion and parenteral nutrition, authoritative guidelines stress careful assessment of underlying pathology, use of these therapies to address life-threatening consequences (e.g., severe anemia, inability to maintain adequate nutrition), and parallel attempts to manage primary disease, accepting that some underlying causes cannot be fully treated and that long-term or palliative supportive care is sometimes the appropriate evidence-based approach. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
Papers listed for this claim:[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
“determining and treating the underlying causes of disease”
Dr. Leslie Stewart is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure working with individuals of ages from infancy to adulthood, Dr. Leslie has experience supporting those suffering from a range of health issues - from back pain to allergies, digestive issues to asthma.
working with individuals of ages from infancy to adulthood, Dr. Leslie has experience supporting those suffering from a range of health issues - from back pain to allergies, digestive issues to asthma
- Supports
- The specific paper list does not address Dr. Leslie or any particular therapeutic modality, but there is strong high‑quality evidence that the health conditions mentioned (asthma, allergies, digestive issues such as inflammatory bowel disease, and back pain) can be meaningfully improved with evidence‑based, clinician‑delivered care across the lifespan. Clinical nutrition guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease emphasize that appropriately trained clinicians can support digestive health through individualized nutritional strategies and multidisciplinary management, including in younger patients. Systematic review and meta‑analysis evidence links exposure to phthalates in PVC products with increased risk of asthma and allergies, showing that clinicians can help patients by identifying and mitigating environmental risk factors that contribute to these conditions. Major back‑pain guidelines and multidisciplinary care standards (from this academic search) consistently support the role of trained clinicians in non‑surgical management of acute and chronic low back pain, using structured education, exercise, physical therapies, and biopsychosocial approaches in primary and community care settings. For asthma, multiple international guidelines (e.g., NHLBI, GINA, WHO) provide age‑stratified evidence‑based treatment algorithms from infancy through adulthood, supporting the idea that an appropriately trained clinician can manage asthma across the life course, using inhaled corticosteroids, bronchodilators, trigger control, and patient/caregiver education. For allergic disease, practice parameters from professional allergy and immunology societies support clinician‑guided management (allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, immunotherapy) across different age groups. Overall, high‑quality evidence supports that clinicians with appropriate training and within a multidisciplinary framework can provide effective care for back pain, asthma, allergies, and digestive conditions in infants, children, and adults, but this evidence is about conditions and care models generally, not about any specific influencer’s personal scope or effectiveness.
- Contradicts
- None of the listed papers or major guidelines support the more expansive implication that a single clinician, regardless of training, can effectively ‘support’ all of these diverse conditions for all ages without working within multidisciplinary, guideline‑based systems or appropriate specialty training. The inflammatory bowel disease nutrition guideline, for example, stresses complex, multidisciplinary care with gastroenterologists, dietitians, and other specialists, not sole‑provider management. The phthalate–asthma/allergy meta‑analysis focuses on environmental risk and does not claim that any one clinician can address all related health issues across all ages. Standard asthma guidelines likewise emphasize structured, evidence‑based protocols, risk stratification, and sometimes specialist referral, rather than implying that any individual clinician can adequately manage everything from infant asthma to complex adult disease in isolation. Major low‑back‑pain guidelines repeatedly recommend multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary programs (combining physical, psychological, and social components), indicating that optimal management is rarely the domain of a single practitioner working alone. Thus, while the conditions themselves are treatable, there is no strong evidence that one influencer or clinician, without specifying training, setting, and adherence to guidelines, can safely and effectively provide comprehensive support for allergies, asthma, digestive issues, and back pain for infants through adults. Evidence is silent about this specific person, so any claim of broad personal expertise across all these domains is not directly supported by peer‑reviewed data.
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical position is that back pain, allergic disease, asthma, and common digestive disorders (including inflammatory bowel disease) should be treated according to condition‑specific, age‑appropriate, evidence‑based guidelines, often in a multidisciplinary team that includes relevant specialists. For inflammatory bowel disease and other complex digestive issues, major guidelines emphasize individualized nutritional therapy, pharmacologic management, and coordinated care among gastroenterologists, dietitians, and other professionals. For asthma and allergies, international and national practice parameters recommend structured assessment, trigger control, pharmacologic therapy (especially inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma), and patient/caregiver education, with pediatric‑specific protocols for infants and children. For back pain, especially chronic low back pain, mainstream guidelines support non‑pharmacologic measures, rehabilitation, and biopsychosocial multidisciplinary programs as first‑line approaches, with escalation and referral as needed. It is accepted that clinicians can work with patients from infancy to adulthood, but mainstream medicine expects clear scope of practice, appropriate training (e.g., pediatrics, allergy/immunology, pulmonology, gastroenterology, rehabilitation), and adherence to Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
Papers listed for this claim:[7][12][13][14][15]
“supporting those suffering from a range of health issues - from back pain to allergies, digestive issues to asthma”
Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, Subd. 1(2), 2
See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on IBS, SIBO and gut disorders
Dr. Leslie Stewart is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Address the underlying causes of disease through in-depth testing and personalized, patient-centered care as within their scope of practice.
Address the underlying causes of disease through in-depth testing and personalized, patient-centered care
- Supports
- Patient-centered care is a recognized component of high-quality clinical practice, and guideline work emphasizes incorporating patient experience, goals, preferences, shared decision-making, and the patient’s context into care delivery. This aligns with the broad framing of the claim that care should be patient-centered and tailored to the individual. Reviews of person-centered care show that interventions often improve process outcomes, satisfaction, self-management, and some quality-of-life measures, although effects on hard clinical outcomes are inconsistent. Evidence-based guideline development also increasingly calls for combining certainty of evidence with patient preferences, feasibility, equity, and cost-effectiveness when deciding on care.
- Contradicts
- The claim is too broad to be supported as stated, because it implies that in-depth testing and personalized care are inherently beneficial for all diseases and patients, which is not established by high-quality evidence. The literature on patient-centered care shows mixed or no clear effects on many clinical outcomes, and some reviews note that interventions improve process measures more reliably than disease endpoints. Multiple sources warn that more testing can cause harm through false positives, overdiagnosis, unnecessary treatment, anxiety, cost, and opportunity cost, so “in-depth testing” is not automatically evidence-based unless it changes management. The listed papers on hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, and left main coronary disease support guideline-driven, indication-specific evaluation and treatment, not open-ended searching for hidden causes in all patients.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medicine supports patient-centered, individualized care that incorporates symptoms, context, preferences, and guideline-based evaluation, but it does not support indiscriminate or reflexively extensive testing for every patient. The standard view is to use targeted diagnostics when there is a clear clinical question, then personalize treatment within evidence-based guidelines and shared decision-making.
Papers listed for this claim:[10][7][9][11][8][5][6][16][17][18][19][20]
“Address the underlying causes of disease through in-depth testing and personalized, patient-centered care”
Dr. Leslie Stewart is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure manage chronic diseases.
manage chronic diseases
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“managing chronic diseases”
Dr. Leslie Stewart is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise nutritional counseling for chronic diseases as within their scope of practice.
nutritional counseling for chronic diseases
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“nutritional counseling”
Manipulation
transcript · cited
The page nudges visitors into a free consult funnel, a classic first step toward converting curiosity into paid care plans or add-on services. Likely motive: Convert readers into booked patients and upsell ongoing care
“scheduling a free phone consultation with Dr. Leslie today”
transcript · cited
The site leans on the 'Dr.' title while promoting functional medicine and disease management, which can make a chiropractor look like a general medical authority rather than a musculoskeletal specialist. Likely motive: Broaden perceived expertise beyond chiropractic scope
“Dr. Leslie Stewart”
transcript · cited
'In-depth testing' in a functional-medicine context is a red flag for cash-pay lab panels or proprietary diagnostics sold as root-cause answers, often with little disclosure about what is being tested or why. Likely motive: Sell testing that feeds follow-on treatment and supplement revenue
“Address the underlying causes of disease through in-depth testing”
Commerce & grift map
The money pattern here is the familiar 'root cause' setup: vague disease language, in-depth testing, and broad wellness promises funnel people toward repeat visits and likely paid plans. Even without a named supplement store or lab vendor, the page is structured to convert health anxiety into a consult booking.
No FTC-style compensation disclosure
compensationDisclosures · scan
Free consultation funnel that likely converts into paid follow-up care, wellness plans, or package visits.
coaching_program
Host self-funnel around guest content
guestCollaboration · selfFunnel
Host routes viewers to their own consult/booking links around the guest segment.
How the money flows
- Coaching or consult upsellUndisclosed Free consultation funnel that likely converts into paid follow-up care, wellness plans, or package visits. “scheduling a free phone consultation with Dr. Leslie today”
“scheduling a free phone consultation with Dr. Leslie today”
Public-record signals
These are potential, unverified signals gathered from public records and directories. They are reported as found, not confirmed by this site, and their presence here is not a finding of wrongdoing. Always check the linked source and seek the most current status before drawing conclusions.
- Better Business BureauFor context
BBB profile: <em>Leslie</em> <em>Stewart</em> Chiropractic
BBB rating A+ | Not BBB accredited | Saint Paul, MN
Records may share a common name with someone else, may be incomplete, or may have since been resolved, dismissed, or overturned. This section is analysis and opinion, not legal advice.
Credentials & scope
Glossary: Chiropractor (“Dr.”)
Learn: Is a chiropractor a medical doctor?, Is a naturopathic doctor a real doctor?
Stated: DR, MD, ND, Chiropractor
Verified against the federal provider registry: D.C. · Chiropractor · MN license 1676.
Leslie Stewart appears to be presenting as a chiropractor while stretching that credential into functional-medicine and disease-management authority. That is classic credential inflation: a narrow musculoskeletal license being used to imply competence in internal medicine.
- DC, Chiropractor
A chiropractic doctorate and state license typically cover spinal and musculoskeletal evaluation, adjustment, and limited adjunctive therapies.
State chiropractic boards generally allow diagnosis/treatment of neuromusculoskeletal conditions, but not general internal medicine, endocrine disease, asthma, allergies, or broad disease-management claims.
Permitted scope vs advertised
Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners · Confidence: high
Minnesota chiropractors are authorized to perform chiropractic services (evaluation and facilitation of structural, biomechanical, and neurological function through adjustment, manipulation, mobilization, or manual/mechanical procedures on bones and joints for correction of vertebral subluxation and related conditions), therapeutic services (rehabilitative therapy including exercise, nutritional therapy, counseling on diet and lifestyle), acupuncture (as adjunct only), and diagnosis within the scope of chiropractic practice. Therapeutic services must be performed within a practice where the primary focus is chiropractic services, to prepare for chiropractic services, or to complement chiropractic services. The practice of chiropractic is explicitly not the practice of medicine, surgery, osteopathic medicine, or physical therapy.
What this license permits
- Spinal adjustment and manipulation
- Musculoskeletal evaluation and treatment
- Soft-tissue and rehabilitative care
- Headache care within musculoskeletal scope
7 of 14 advertised activities fall outside permitted scope.
| Advertised | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Listed service functional medicine Functional medicine is a systems-based medical approach to diagnosis and treatment of disease; Minnesota law explicitly states that chiropractic practice is not the practice of medicine and limits chiropractors to chiropractic services (structural/biomechanical/neurological evaluation and adjustment) and therapeutic services complementary to chiropractic care. | Outside scope |
| determining and treating the underlying causes of disease Determining and treating underlying causes of systemic disease is medical diagnosis and treatment; chiropractors are limited to diagnosis and treatment of chiropractic conditions (vertebral subluxation, abnormal articulations, structural/biomechanical/neurological dysfunction) and may not practice medicine. | Outside scope |
| working with individuals of ages from infancy to adulthood, Dr. Leslie has experience supporting those suffering from a range of health issues - from back pain to allergies, digestive issues to asthma Treating systemic conditions such as allergies, digestive issues, and asthma as primary diagnoses falls outside chiropractic scope; chiropractors may address structural/biomechanical dysfunction but not systemic disease management, and the statute explicitly excludes medical practice. | Outside scope |
| Address the underlying causes of disease through in-depth testing and personalized, patient-centered care Addressing underlying causes of disease implies systemic disease diagnosis and management, which is medical practice; chiropractors may perform diagnostic services within the scope of chiropractic practice (to identify vertebral subluxation and related structural conditions) but not to diagnose or treat systemic disease. | Outside scope |
| manage chronic diseases Managing chronic diseases is medical practice and disease management; chiropractors may provide chiropractic services and therapeutic services to address structural/biomechanical dysfunction but are not authorized to manage systemic chronic diseases. | Outside scope |
| in-depth testing for underlying causes of disease In-depth testing to identify underlying causes of systemic disease is medical diagnosis; chiropractors may perform diagnostic services (physical, clinical, laboratory, imaging) within the scope of chiropractic practice to identify chiropractic conditions, not to diagnose systemic disease. | Outside scope |
| nutritional counseling for chronic diseases Nutritional counseling for chronic disease management is medical treatment; while nutritional counseling is in-scope when it complements chiropractic services, using it as a primary treatment for chronic disease management constitutes medical practice. | Outside scope |
Sources: Minnesota Statutes Chapter 148 - Chiropractic (official), Minnesota Rules Part 2500.0100 - Definitions (official), Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners - Statutes and Rules (official), Sec. 148.01 MN Statutes (official)
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 (drlesliechiropractic.com)
Tip the jar
Report useful? Optional tips help keep scans, archives, and literature cross-checks running. They never change conclusions.
Submission wTqbNUKndpkoof1PBYMGX
Fight disinformation
Log a public thread where Dr. Leslie Stewart 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 Dr. Leslie Stewart's claims with peer-reviewed sources, https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/wTqbNUKndpkoof1PBYMGX. White-coat charisma isn't evidence.
Full DTMB scan on Dr. Leslie Stewart: https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/wTqbNUKndpkoof1PBYMGX
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 could not find a public contact email for Dr. Leslie Stewart. Reach them through their own site and ask them to review this dossier and correct anything we got wrong.
Know someone who can help?
If you think someone has firsthand information about Dr. Leslie Stewart, 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 Dr. Leslie Stewart. 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: h9_q6TmGWNjG70R7rAcMj
- Wall entry: /influencer/h9_q6TmGWNjG70R7rAcMj
- Analysis ID: wTqbNUKndpkoof1PBYMGX
- Source: https://www.drlesliechiropractic.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] A comparison between chiropractic management and pain clinic ...
- [2] Clinical Study Dose-response for chiropractic care of chronic low back pain ☆
- [3] The Nordic Maintenance Care program: Effectiveness of chiropractic maintenance care versus symptom-guided treatment for recurrent and persistent low back pain—A pragmatic randomized controlled trial
- [4] Chiropractic: Is it Efficient in Treatment of Diseases? Review of ...
- [5] GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision.
- [6] Blood Transfusion Therapy.
- [7] ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease.
- [8] EFNS guideline on the treatment of tension-type headache - report of an EFNS task force.
- [9] ASPEN-FELANPE Clinical Guidelines.
- [10] Guideline-Driven Management of Hypertension: An Evidence-Based Update.
- [11] When Is Parenteral Nutrition Appropriate?
- [12] Acute back pain: The role of medication, physical medicine and rehabilitation: WFNS spine committee recommendations
- [13] Value-based healthcare in management of chronic back pain: A multidisciplinary- and lean-based approach
- [14] A multidisciplinary pain management program for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized, single-blind, controlled, feasibility study
- [15] An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care
- [16] A Practical Approach to Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.
- [17] Alzheimer's Association clinical practice guideline for the Diagnostic Evaluation, Testing, Counseling, and Disclosure of Suspected Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders (DETeCD‐ADRD): Executive summary of recommendations for primary care
- [18] A nurse driven care management program to engage older diabetes patients in personalized goal setting and disease management
- [19] The Effectiveness of Patient‐Centered Digital Empowerment Programs in Hematological Cancer Care: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
- [20] Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review ...