Abstract

In an earlier publication (part I) we conducted a critique of the literature supporting whiplash as a ‘chronic injury’, specifically examining original research which contradicts scientific measures and efforts showing that the highly prevalent problem of chronic whiplash is a cultural and psychosocially determined phenomenon. We reviewed the biomedical and engineering literature relating to whiplash syndrome, searching for articles that supported the construct of ‘chronic whiplash injuries’ and found that all of the articles contained significant methodologic errors relative to their respective authors’ statements regarding chronic whiplash. The most frequent concerns reside with sampling, experimental design and interpretation of data. In Part II of this critique we examine other article types (reviews, editorials, letters). The authors of the current critique found that these articles also contained significant errors or biases relative to their respective authors’ statements regarding chronic whiplash. The most frequent concerns reside with terminology, citation methods, scientific reasoning, and lack of address of contrary evidence.

Keywords: Bias (Epidemiology), Bibliometrics, Biomechanics, Chronic Disease, Databases, Bibliographic, Terminology, Whiplash Injuries - epidemiology, Whiplash Injuries - etiology, Whiplash Injuries - physiopathology