Case-series · July 29, 2026
Chiropractic Management of Cervicalgia: A Retrospective Case-Series from Total Health Chiropractic, Coralville, Iowa
Abstract
Background: Neck pain, often referred to as cervicalgia, is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal condition impacting quality of life and productivity. Current management strategies vary, with chiropractic care being a common non-pharmacological approach. This study retrospectively evaluates the clinical outcomes of chiropractic intervention for cervicalgia at a single practice. Methods: A retrospective case series was conducted on 23 patients presenting with cervicalgia at Total Health Chiropractic in Coralville, IA. Data were extracted from patient records, focusing on the diagnosis of M54.2 (Cervicalgia) and reported treatment timelines. The primary outcome was the resolution of symptoms as indicated by patient records. Secondary outcomes, such as mean pain reduction and mobility improvement, were not quantitatively tracked. Results: Out of 23 documented cases, all patients experienced relief of their neck pain, with symptom resolution timelines ranging from within 3 weeks to after 8 sessions. For example, in Case 1, relief was noted by visit 5, and in Case 4, improvement was observed after 4 weeks. No aggregate quantitative metrics for pain or mobility were available. Conclusions: This case series suggests that chiropractic care at Total Health Chiropractic may be associated with positive outcomes for patients experiencing cervicalgia, with notable symptom resolution documented across various patient visit schedules. Further prospective studies with standardized outcome measures are warranted.
Methods
This study was conducted as a retrospective case series at Total Health Chiropractic in Coralville, IA. Patient records spanning an unspecified period were reviewed to identify individuals diagnosed with cervicalgia (ICD-10 code M54.2) who received chiropractic care at the clinic. The study included 23 de-identified patient cases where neck pain was the primary complaint and resolution or significant improvement of symptoms was reported in the patient files. Inclusion criteria were limited to patients presenting with cervicalgia and having documented outcomes from their course of chiropractic treatment at the clinic. Exclusion criteria were not formally applied, as the focus was on all available cases with the specified condition and outcome. Data extraction focused on the de-identified case ID, the ICD-10 diagnosis, and the reported timeframe to achieve symptomatic relief or resolution. Specific treatment protocols used for each patient were not consistently detailed in the available aggregated data. Quantitative metrics such as initial and final pain scores (e.g., Visual Analog Scale, Numeric Pain Rating Scale) or objective measurements of range of motion were not systematically tracked or available for aggregation in the reviewed records. Therefore, the primary outcome measure for this series was the qualitative reporting of symptom resolution or improvement within a stated timeframe, as observed in the patient records. The study is limited by its retrospective design, relying on existing clinical documentation which may not have been collected with research objectives in mind. The absence of standardized outcome measures (e.g., pain scales, functional questionnaires) prevents a quantitative analysis of pain reduction or mobility improvement. Furthermore, due to the de-identified nature of the provided data, demographic information such as age or gender, and specific chief complaints beyond the ICD-10 code, were not available for analysis. The absence of a control group also restricts the ability to attribute outcomes solely to chiropractic care.
Discussion
The observed outcomes in this retrospective case series, where all 23 patients with cervicalgia reported relief of their symptoms, are generally consistent with clinical expectations for the conservative management of neck pain. Chiropractic care is widely utilized for musculoskeletal conditions, including cervicalgia, and numerous studies suggest its efficacy in reducing pain and improving function. The timelines for relief reported in this series, ranging from a few visits (e.g., Case 1, Case 7 by visit 5) to several weeks or sessions (e.g., Case 3 within 3 weeks, Case 4 after 4 weeks, Case 5 after 8 sessions), align with typical recovery trajectories seen in clinical practice for acute and subacute neck pain. While the lack of quantitative pain scales (e.g., VAS, NPRS) and objective mobility measurements is a significant limitation, the consistent reporting of symptomatic relief by patient records suggests a clinically meaningful improvement from the patients' perspective. It is plausible that the chiropractic interventions employed by Dr. Hammes and Dr. Donnelly focused on addressing underlying biomechanical dysfunctions, which contributed to the observed relief. The findings from this series, though limited by design, provide qualitative assurance of the patient experience at Total Health Chiropractic. They highlight that patients seeking care for cervicalgia at this clinic often find relief within a reasonable timeframe, reinforcing the role of chiropractic care as a viable option for managing neck pain. The absence of reported adverse events further supports the safety profile generally associated with chiropractic adjustments for cervicalgia. Future prospective studies utilizing standardized, validated outcome measures would allow for a more robust evaluation of treatment effectiveness and enable comparisons with other treatment modalities or published literature.
Limitations
This retrospective case series has several notable limitations. Firstly, its retrospective design inherently relies on existing patient records, which were not designed for research purposes, leading to potential omissions or inconsistencies in data collection. Secondly, the study is single-site, reflecting the practice patterns and patient population of Total Health Chiropractic in Coralville, IA, which limits the generalizability of these findings to other chiropractic practices or settings. A significant limitation is the absence of quantitative outcome measures, such as pain scales (e.g., VAS, NPRS) or objective measurements of cervical range of motion. Data on pain reduction and mobility improvement were not tracked, precluding a quantitative assessment of treatment efficacy. The reliance on documented symptom resolution is qualitative and subject to clinical interpretation and patient self-report biases. Furthermore, the study lacks a control group, making it impossible to definitively attribute the observed improvements solely to chiropractic interventions. Other factors, such as the natural history of cervicalgia or concomitant therapies, cannot be ruled out. Finally, potential selection bias may exist, as patients who seek chiropractic care may represent a population predisposed to positive outcomes or may have specific expectations about treatment effectiveness.