Case-series · July 29, 2026

Retrospective Case Series: Lumbar and Cervical Spine Pain Outcomes in a Chiropractic Clinic Setting

Abstract

Background: Chronic spinal pain, including lower back pain and neck pain, represents a significant global health burden, often leading to functional limitations and reduced quality of life. This study investigates the outcomes of chiropractic care for patients presenting with various spinal complaints at a specific chiropractic clinic. Methods: A retrospective case series review was conducted on 15 de-identified patient records from Larger Than Life Chiropractic in Macon, GA. Data collected included initial and final pain scores, and calculated percentage reduction in pain over a specified treatment timeframe. Mobility improvement was not tracked consistently. Results: Across 15 cases, the mean pain reduction observed was 8%, with a median reduction of 9%. Individual patient outcomes varied, with pain reduction percentages ranging from 3% to 13%. For example, Case 4, a female aged 50-55 with neck pain, demonstrated a 13% pain reduction over 14 weeks. Conclusions: These findings suggest that chiropractic care, as administered at Larger Than Life Chiropractic, can be associated with reductions in perceived pain for conditions affecting the lumbar and cervical spine. Future research with more comprehensive outcome measures and larger cohorts is warranted to further explore the efficacy and specific benefits of chiropractic interventions for spinal health.

Methods

This study utilized a retrospective case series design, reviewing de-identified patient data collected from routine clinical practice at Larger Than Life Chiropractic in Macon, GA. Inclusion criteria for this analysis were de-identified patient records documenting initial and final pain scores following a course of chiropractic care for spinal health concerns. A total of 15 patient records were included in this aggregate outcome analysis. Data points extracted from these records included age range, gender, chief complaint, initial pain score, final pain score, calculated pain reduction percentage, and total treatment timeframe in weeks. Pain scores were self-reported by patients. Mobility improvement data was noted as 'not tracked' across the records, preventing its inclusion in the aggregate analysis. No specific treatment protocols or techniques were explicitly detailed in the collated data, reflecting the variability inherent in personalized chiropractic care. The timeframe for treatment varied among patients, ranging from 12 to 23 weeks, indicating a medium-to-long-term follow-up for most cases. The data collected represents real-world clinical outcomes recorded by Dr. Dusty Large and Dr. Eduardo Emanuel Rivera at Larger Than Life Chiropractic. Limitations of this retrospective review include the lack of a control group, the use of self-reported pain scores which can introduce subjectivity, and the absence of standardized functional outcome measures, such as mobility metrics, across all documented cases. The de-identified nature of the data also precluded access to detailed historical medical information or specific treatment modalities used for each patient. However, this approach provides valuable insights into the aggregate and individual patient experiences within this specific chiropractic practice.

Discussion

The findings from this retrospective case series at Larger Than Life Chiropractic suggest that patients undergoing chiropractic care for spinal health issues, including lower back pain, neck pain, and mid-back pain, experienced reductions in their self-reported pain levels. The observed mean pain reduction of 8% and median of 9% across 15 cases aligns with general clinical expectations that conservative treatments, such as chiropractic care, can offer symptomatic relief for musculoskeletal conditions. While these percentages may appear modest, even small reductions in pain can significantly improve a patient's quality of life and functional capacity, particularly for those presenting with chronic conditions. The variability in pain reduction, ranging from 3% to 13%, highlights the individualized nature of patient response to treatment, which is a common characteristic in chiropractic practice. The case vignettes illustrate this diversity, with some patients achieving more substantial improvement than others over similar or varying treatment durations. For example, the patient in Case 4, exhibiting a 13% pain reduction, represents a positive outcome within this cohort. The absence of tracked mobility improvement is a notable limitation, as optimal spinal health extends beyond pain relief to include restored function and range of motion. Future data collection would benefit from incorporating standardized functional outcome measures. Despite these limitations, the consistent observation of some degree of pain reduction across a diverse set of spinal complaints offers supporting evidence for the role of chiropractic care in pain management. This study contributes to the body of real-world outcome data from a private practice setting, providing practical insights into the experiences of patients receiving care from Dr. Dusty Large and Dr. Eduardo Emanuel Rivera. The clinical implications suggest that chiropractic care can be considered a viable conservative option for individuals experiencing spinal pain, consistent with established literature supporting manual therapies for such conditions.

Limitations

This retrospective case series has several important limitations. Firstly, its retrospective design inherently limits the ability to control for confounding variables and establish causality. There was no control group, meaning observed pain reductions cannot be definitively attributed solely to chiropractic interventions. Secondly, the study is single-site, limited to Larger Than Life Chiropractic, which restricts the generalizability of these findings to other chiropractic practices or populations. Thirdly, the measurements relied on self-reported pain scores, which are subjective and can be influenced by patient perception, recall bias, and external factors not related to treatment. Furthermore, the lack of standardized mobility improvement tracking across all cases represents a significant data gap. Finally, the study is subject to selection bias, as only patients who continued care and had recorded endpoint data were included, potentially omitting those who discontinued treatment for various reasons.