Palmer Coronavirus/COVID-19 Updates 
Translating research into better health

Translating research into better health

Palmer is at the forefront of chiropractic research
Summer 2008


Determining spinal level using the inferior angle of the scapula as a reference landmark: a retrospective analysis of 50 radiographs.

The William and Jo Harris Building on Palmer College’s Davenport Campus houses the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research. Studies are also conducted separately by faculty on all three of Palmer’s campuses.
William and Jo Harris Building

AUTHORS: Michael Haneline, D.C., M.P.H.; Robert Cooperstein, D.C., M.A.; Morgan Young, B.S.; and Justin Ross, R.N., D.C.  

The purpose of this study was to determine which spinal segment most closely corresponds to the level of the inferior angle of the scapula (IAS) using measurements taken on A-P full-spine radiographs. Fifty sequentially selected radiographs were analyzed independently by two examiners. A straight edge was used to ascertain which spinal levels corresponded with the right and left IASs. For analysis, each spinal level was subdivided into three regions: upper vertebral body, lower vertebral body, and intervertebral space. We found that the mean spinal level corresponding to the left IAS was midway between the T8-9 interspace and the upper T9 body (range, lower T7 to upper T10). The mean spinal level corresponding to the right IAS was slightly lower, but still within the upper T9 body (range, lower T7 to lower T10). These levels correspond to the T8 spinous process. We conclude that there is a considerable amount of variability in where the IASs are located, but most commonly, they correspond to the level of the upper body of T9.

(The full abstract of this study was published in the Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association 2008, Volume 52, Issue 1, pages 24-49.)

The four principles of biomedical ethics: A foundation for current bioethical debate.

AUTHOR: Dana Lawrence, D.C., M.M.E. 

In this paper, Dr. Lawrence provides an overview of the four principles originally developed by Thomas Beauchamp and James Childress that are now used in modern bioethical decision- making and debate, and he describes several challenges to their premier status in bioethics. The four principles that form the core of modern bioethics discussion include autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice. Autonomy addresses the issue of consent and freedom of choice; justice the fair allocation of health care resources; and beneficence and nonmaleficence the question of risk versus benefit. The originators of these principles claim that none is more important than another, yet challenges have been laid against these principles on that basis as well as on other areas of disagreement. This paper looks at the nature of the most significant of those challenges. The four principles have withstood challenge now for nearly 30 years and still form the basis for most decision making in both the research setting and in clinical practice within the chiropractic profession. However, professional understanding of the principles is not known and may provide a fertile area for further investigation.

(The full abstract of this study was published in the Journal of Chiropractic Humanities 2007 , Volume 14, pages 34-40.)

Choose your program