Chiropractic Management of General Musculoskeletal Dysfunction: A Retrospective Case Series

Abstract

Background: Musculoskeletal dysfunction represents a significant cause of discomfort and functional limitation, for which many individuals seek non-pharmacological treatments such as chiropractic care. This article examines patient-reported outcomes following chiropractic management at a single private practice. Methods: A retrospective case series was conducted. Data were compiled from four de-identified patient cases at 100% Chiropractic in Tampa, FL, who received care for general musculoskeletal dysfunction. The inclusion criterion was the availability of a self-reported outcome narrative. Quantitative metrics for pain and mobility were not available. The study reviewed qualitative patient reports of their experience and perceived changes in their condition. Results: Quantitative aggregate outcomes for pain reduction and mobility improvement were not tracked. The four cases reviewed all reported positive qualitative outcomes. One patient described an “amazing transformation,” while another who had failed to find relief elsewhere reported that most problems were resolved within three sessions. Other reports included “feeling substantially better” and “never felt better.” All outcomes were based entirely on patient self-assessment, with no standardized measures used. Conclusions: In this series of four cases, patients with general musculoskeletal dysfunction reported high satisfaction and significant symptomatic improvement following a course of chiropractic care. These findings suggest a potential benefit but are limited by the study’s retrospective design, small sample size, lack of a control group, and reliance on subjective reports. Rigorous prospective studies are necessary to validate these observations.

Methods

This study was conducted as a retrospective case series to summarize patient outcomes at a single chiropractic clinic. Patient data were sourced from 100% Chiropractic located in Tampa, FL, under the direction of Dr. Pedro Rosado (D.C.).

Inclusion criteria for this series consisted of de-identified patient cases from the clinic's records who had presented with general musculoskeletal dysfunction and for whom a qualitative, self-reported outcome was available. A total of four patient cases met this criterion and were included for analysis.

Data extraction involved reviewing narratives of patient experiences and an overview of their chief complaints. The collected data were qualitative in nature. Standardized quantitative metrics, such as pain levels on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) or Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and objective functional measures, such as range of motion measurements, were not systematically tracked in the source records and thus were not available for this analysis. Information regarding specific treatment protocols, including the exact techniques applied, frequency, and duration of care for each individual, was not detailed in the provided case data, although the clinic utilizes a broad range of techniques including Diversified, Thompson Drop, Flexion-Distraction, and various soft tissue modalities.

The primary limitation of this methodology is its retrospective nature, which relies on pre-existing records that were not collected for research purposes. This design is susceptible to selection bias, information bias, and the absence of a control group, which prevents the establishment of causality between the intervention and the reported outcomes. The findings are therefore descriptive and serve to highlight patient experiences rather than to establish treatment efficacy.

Discussion

The findings from this retrospective case series suggest a pattern of positive patient-reported outcomes for individuals with general musculoskeletal dysfunction receiving care at a single chiropractic clinic. While the data are entirely qualitative and subjective, the consistency of the reports across all four cases indicates a high level of perceived patient benefit. Patients used strong, positive language to describe their transformations, such as “amazing” and “never felt better,” which, while non-clinical, points to a significant impact on their quality of life.

The case (Case 4) of a patient experiencing resolution of long-standing issues after just three sessions, following failed attempts with other providers, is particularly compelling from a patient-centered perspective. It suggests that the specific approach or combination of techniques used at this clinic may be effective for complex or recalcitrant cases. The specific techniques utilized by the clinic, including Diversified, Thompson, soft tissue mobilization, and others, represent a multimodal approach that may address musculoskeletal issues more comprehensively than a single therapeutic modality.

These results align with broader clinical expectations that chiropractic care is a viable and often successful option for managing pain and dysfunction of musculoskeletal origin. However, the outcomes documented here must be interpreted with significant caution. Without standardized metrics, it is impossible to quantify the magnitude of improvement or compare it to results from controlled clinical trials in the wider literature. The reported success could be influenced by the therapeutic alliance, patient expectations, the natural history of the conditions, or a placebo effect. The primary clinical implication is that, for the patients included, the care they received was highly valued and perceived as effective. This underscores the importance of the patient's subjective experience in clinical practice, but it cannot serve as evidence of efficacy.

Limitations

This study has several significant limitations inherent to its design. First, as a retrospective case series, it is susceptible to selection bias, as cases may have been chosen based on positive outcomes documented in testimonials. Second, the absence of a control group makes it impossible to attribute the reported improvements directly to the chiropractic interventions; factors such as the placebo effect, the natural course of the conditions, or concurrent interventions cannot be ruled out. Third, the study relies exclusively on subjective, non-standardized patient self-reports rather than objective data from validated pain scales, functional assessments, or physical examinations. This lack of quantitative metrics prevents a rigorous assessment of the magnitude of change. Finally, the findings are from a single practitioner at a single clinic, which limits the generalizability of the results to other chiropractic practices, practitioners, or patient populations. These limitations mean the study should be considered preliminary and descriptive in nature.