top of page

Chiropractic Care for Car Accident Injuries: Spine, Nervous System, and Evidence-Based Recovery

Chiropractic care plays a critical role in recovery after car accidents by addressing injuries to the spine, surrounding soft tissues, and the nervous system. The rapid forces generated during a collision can produce whiplash, disc injury, spinal joint dysfunction, and nerve irritation, all of which may lead to persistent pain and functional impairment if not properly treated. Through precise spinal adjustments chiropractors work to restore normal joint motion, reduce inflammation, and relieve mechanical stress on affected nerves, thereby supporting the body’s innate healing processes. By improving spinal biomechanics and nervous system regulation, chiropractic care provides effective pain relief while also reducing the likelihood that acute accident-related injuries progress into chronic, long-term conditions.

Car accident injuries and why minor collisions can still cause major symptoms

Motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) expose the human body to rapid acceleration–deceleration forces that can exceed the spine’s normal physiological movement patterns in milliseconds, even when vehicle damage appears minor. Real-world data from “minor” rear-impact crashes in the United States (delta‑V ≤ 15 km/h) show that many occupants still receive clinically documented injury diagnoses—most commonly involving the cervical region, but also frequently the lumbar/sacral and thoracic regions—underscoring that low-speed collisions can still produce clinically relevant trauma. (Bartsch, “Minor Crashes and ‘Whiplash’ in the United States” (PMCID: PMC3256773))

​

The most recognized MVC-related injury pattern is whiplash-associated disorder (WAD), a term formalized in the Quebec Task Force monograph and widely used in research and clinical settings. WAD describes a spectrum of symptoms following a whiplash mechanism (often rear-end or side-impact collisions) and is commonly graded by clinical findings (e.g., pain and stiffness; musculoskeletal signs such as reduced range of motion; or neurologic signs). (Spitzer et al., 1995, “Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on WAD” (PMID: 7604354)) Critically, the biomechanical “signature” of whiplash is not simply “hyperextension” of the neck. Experimental work by Panjabi and colleagues demonstrated a biphasic response in whiplash trauma, including an early “S-shaped” curvature phase (upper cervical flexion with lower cervical hyperextension) that occurs before the head reaches maximum extension; this early phase is implicated as a period of high injury potential. (Panjabi, 1998, “Mechanism of whiplash injury” (PMID: 11415793); Panjabi et al., 2004, “Cervical spine curvature during simulated whiplash” (PMID: 14659923))only involving the cervical region, but also frequently the lumbar/sacral and thoracic regions—underscoring that low-speed collisions can still produce clinically relevant trauma. (Bartsch, “Minor Crashes and ‘Whiplash’ in the United States” (PMCID: PMC3256773))

​

Several tissue structures can be vulnerable during these rapid kinematic events. Mechanical studies simulating whiplash have quantified facet joint compression, sliding, and capsular ligament strain, demonstrating that facet capsular ligament strains can exceed physiologic limits and may reach high magnitudes in lower cervical segments as impact severity increases. (Pearson et al., 2004, “Facet joint kinematics and injury mechanisms during simulated whiplash” (PMID: 15094535)) Broader biomechanical reviews highlight facet capsule loading and strain thresholds as plausible mechanisms for post-crash neck pain, identifying the facet capsule region as a major potential source of pain after whiplash-type events. (Chen et al., 2009, “Biomechanics of whiplash injury” (PMID: 19788851)) Consistent with this mechanistic framework, clinical perspectives emphasize that cervical zygapophysial (facet) joint pain is common in chronic neck pain after whiplash. (Bogduk, 2011, “On cervical zygapophysial joint pain after whiplash” (PMID: 22020612))

​

It is also essential to avoid overly simplistic assumptions about crash severity. While delta‑V is often used as a proxy for collision energy, research analyzing real-life motor vehicle accidents found no delta‑V threshold with acceptable sensitivity and specificity for predicting cervical spine injury, concluding that delta‑V is not a conclusive predictor of cervical injury in real-world settings. (Elbel et al., 2009, “Deceleration during ‘real life’ motor vehicle collisions…” (PMCID: PMC2657117)) This reflects the reality that occupant biomechanics depend on many variables beyond speed change, including posture, head position, seat/head restraint geometry, anticipation, and individual anatomy. (Elbel et al., 2009 (PMCID: PMC2657117))

​

Clinically, car accident-related injuries commonly present as a constellation of symptoms rather than a single diagnosis. In addition to neck and back pain, collision-related patients often report headaches, shoulder girdle pain, paresthesias or “nerve irritation” symptoms, dizziness, and cognitive or concentration difficulties. (Kasch & Jensen, 2019, “Minor Head Injury Symptoms and Recovery From Whiplash Injury” (PMCID: PMC8282153); Chen et al., 2009 (PMID: 19788851)) Post-whiplash headaches are particularly important because they are a frequent driver of disability and healthcare utilization. Cohort research on cervicogenic headache after whiplash suggests that cervicogenic headache can occur after whiplash injury—especially early—and may follow a prolonged course in a subset of individuals. (Drottning et al., 2002, “Cervicogenic headache (CEH) after whiplash injury” (PMID: 12047452))

​

Some patients also experience symptoms suggestive of autonomic nervous system dysregulation (often described clinically as “dysautonomia” symptoms), such as lightheadedness, temperature or color changes, palpitations, or unusual sweating patterns. While not all such symptoms originate from cervical injury (and alternative causes must be considered), contemporary clinical scholarship notes that autonomic dysfunction features can occur in cervical conditions and whiplash populations, and that sympathetic and pain-processing interactions can become maladaptive in persistent musculoskeletal pain states. (Koenig et al., 2016, “Lower Resting State HRV… chronic WAD” (PMID: 26614574); De Kooning et al., 2013, “Autonomic response to pain in chronic WAD” (PMID: 23703426))

​

Finally, it is increasingly recognized that MVC trauma may involve more than the neck alone. Whiplash and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI/concussion) can share overlapping biomechanics and symptom profiles, including headache, dizziness, sleep disturbance, and concentration problems; a cervical component may meaningfully contribute to “concussion-like” symptom patterns in some cases. (Morin et al., 2016, “Cervical Spine Involvement in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Review” (PMCID: PMC4977400); Kasch & Jensen, 2019 (PMCID: PMC8282153)) This overlap reinforces why post-collision assessment must be comprehensive and neurologically informed, rather than focused solely on local tissue pain.

Neurological mechanisms of post-collision pain and dysfunction

A defining feature of car accident-related injuries is the mismatch that sometimes develops between tissue healing timelines and symptom persistence. Many soft tissues improve over weeks, yet a substantial proportion of patients develop chronic WAD or persistent pain-related disability. Contemporary reviews estimate that roughly half of individuals after whiplash injury may develop chronic WAD, with a meaningful minority reporting ongoing severe disability. (de Zoete et al., 2022, “Editorial: Whiplash-associated disorder—advances…” (PMCID: PMC9686416)) Understanding why requires a neurophysiological lens: pain after MVC is often driven by both peripheral tissue inputs and central nervous system (CNS) processing.

Nociception and peripheral sensitization after tissue strain

Car accident forces can strain muscles, ligaments, intervertebral joints, discs, and facet capsules. Mechanical deformation and microinjury activate peripheral nociceptors (pain-sensing afferents) embedded in these tissues. Tissue injury also triggers inflammatory signaling (e.g., cytokines, prostaglandins, neuropeptides), which can lower nociceptor activation thresholds—a process often described as peripheral sensitization—so that normal movement or mild mechanical pressure becomes painful. Although peripheral inflammatory signaling is not unique to MVC injuries, the rapid mechanical loading of cervical structures in whiplash makes it a potent trigger for intense nociceptive barrage early after injury. (Pearson et al., 2004 (PMID: 15094535); Chen et al., 2009 (PMID: 19788851))

​

Importantly, “nerve irritation” after a car accident may reflect more than simple muscle spasm. A systematic review and meta-analysis on nerve pathology and neuropathic pain after whiplash found evidence suggesting that a subset of WAD patients demonstrate signs consistent with peripheral nerve pathology and neuropathic pain features, indicating that clinicians should consider nerve integrity and neuropathic mechanisms when symptoms include paresthesias, burning pain qualities, or disproportionate pain responses. (Fundaun et al., 2021, “Nerve pathology and neuropathic pain after whiplash injury” (PMCID: PMC7612893))

Central sensitization and spinal cord hyperexcitability

When nociceptive input is intense, prolonged, or paired with stress-related neurochemistry, the spinal cord and brain can undergo activity-dependent amplification of pain processing. This phenomenon—central sensitization—reflects increased excitability and synaptic efficacy in central nociceptive pathways and manifests clinically as pain hypersensitivity, amplified responses to mechanical pressure, allodynia, and enhanced temporal summation. (Woolf, 2011, “Central sensitization…” (PMCID: PMC3268359); Latremoliere & Woolf, 2009 (PMCID: PMC2750819); Ji et al., 2018 (PMCID: PMC6051899))

​

Whiplash research provides unusually clear human evidence for early central nervous system involvement. In a landmark prospective study, Sterling and colleagues reported that sensory hypersensitivity can occur soon after whiplash injury and is associated with poor recovery trajectories. (Sterling et al., 2003 (PMID: 12927623)) More directly, Sterling and collaborators later documented spinal cord hyperexcitability using nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) thresholds: lowered NFR thresholds were present at approximately three weeks post-injury, and this hyperexcitability persisted in individuals with moderate/severe symptoms at six months while resolving in those who recovered. (Sterling et al., 2010 (PMID: 20594646)) These findings help explain why some patients experience persistent pain and widespread tenderness even after initial tissue healing: the “gain” on the nervous system has been turned up.

Sensorimotor dysfunction: proprioception, reflexes, and “the neck–brain connection”

Car accidents often produce not only pain but also dyscoordination: stiffness, unstable-feeling motion, dizziness, and difficulty trusting movement. One explanatory pathway is altered cervical afferent input (proprioception). The cervical spine contains dense mechanoreceptors that provide the CNS with continuous position and movement feedback; traumatic strain, inflammation, and muscle changes can distort this signal. (Sterling, 2011 (PMCID: PMC3201650); Mazaheri et al., 2021 (PMCID: PMC8031393))

Autonomic nervous system dysregulation: stress physiology, pain, and dysautonomia-like symptoms

The autonomic nervous system (ANS)—sympathetic and parasympathetic branches—regulates heart rate, blood pressure, thermoregulation, gut motility, and other nonconscious functions. Acute pain typically triggers sympathetic arousal, which can be adaptive in the short term. However, persistent pain states can be associated with altered ANS regulation and disrupted relationships between cardiovascular signals and pain sensitivity. (Koenig et al., 2016 (PMID: 26614574); De Kooning et al., 2013 (PMID: 23703426))

In chronic WAD, evidence on autonomic dysfunction is mixed but clinically relevant. For example, Koenig and colleagues found lower vagally mediated heart rate variability (vmHRV) in chronic WAD compared with controls and reported an inverse relationship between vmHRV and pain catastrophizing. (Koenig et al., 2016 (PMID: 26614574)) Conversely, De Kooning and colleagues reported no difference in autonomic response to experimental pain between chronic WAD patients and controls (in the context of their specific paradigm), illustrating that ANS alterations may be context-dependent and not universally detectable across all testing conditions. (De Kooning et al., 2013 (PMID: 23703426)) A nuanced view is that some individuals exhibit clinically meaningful ANS-related symptoms after MVC—sometimes influenced by stress reactions, sleep impairment, or comorbid concussion—while others do not. (Kasch & Jensen, 2019 (PMCID: PMC8282153); Morin et al., 2016 (PMCID: PMC4977400); Koenig et al., 2016 (PMID: 26614574))

What chiropractic care entails after a motor vehicle collision

Chiropractic care after a car accident is best understood as a conservative, noninvasive neuromusculoskeletal approach aimed at reducing pain, restoring mobility, and improving function—often as part of a broader, multimodal recovery plan. In collision-related practice, chiropractors commonly evaluate and manage WAD, cervicogenic headaches, thoracic and lumbar sprain/strain patterns, and certain forms of extremity pain that may reflect radicular or referred mechanisms. (Shaw et al., 2010 (PMID: 20364057); Hurwitz et al., 2002 (PMCID: PMC1447299))

A high-quality post-MVC chiropractic assessment typically includes screening for red flags (fracture risk, progressive neurological deficit, suspected concussion red flags, vascular concerns), neurological examination (strength, sensation, reflexes), range-of-motion testing, palpation and movement assessment, and—when clinically indicated—referral for imaging or co-management. This matters because chiropractic care is not a substitute for emergency evaluation when serious injury is suspected; rather, it is a conservative care pathway for stable patients who require rehabilitation, symptom modulation, and functional restoration. (Spitzer et al., 1995 (PMID: 7604354); Morin et al., 2016 (PMCID: PMC4977400))

Treatment plans vary, but most evidence-informed chiropractic approaches to car accident injuries combine several elements:

  • Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and/or mobilization to address painful or restricted spinal segments.

  • Soft tissue interventions to reduce guarding and improve tolerance to movement.

  • Therapeutic exercise and progressive activity exposure to restore capacity and reduce fear-avoidance.

  • Education on prognosis, pacing, sleep, ergonomics, and self-management.

This multimodal framing aligns with the reality that persistent WAD is rarely a purely structural problem; it is a neurobiomechanical condition shaped by tissue injury, nervous system sensitization, and behavioral adaptation. (Sterling, 2011 (PMCID: PMC3201650); Shaw et al., 2010 (PMID: 20364057))

How chiropractic interventions may influence recovery biomechanics and neurophysiology

The “benefits” of chiropractic care after a car accident are most defensible when framed in two complementary domains: biomechanical restoration (movement, joint function, tissue loading patterns) and neurological modulation (pain processing, sensorimotor integration, and—more tentatively—autonomic regulation). Contemporary mechanistic models of manual therapy emphasize that neurophysiological responses occur alongside any local mechanical effects, and that pain reduction may occur through both peripheral and central pathways. (Bialosky et al., 2009 (PMCID: PMC2775050); Pickar, 2002 (PMID: 14589467))

Biomechanical and sensorimotor benefits: restoring motion and recalibrating afferent input

After whiplash, protective muscle guarding and altered segmental motion can create a vicious cycle: pain reduces motion, reduced motion increases sensitivity and stiffness, and the nervous system learns to interpret movement as threat. SMT and mobilization may help interrupt this cycle by improving segmental motion and providing novel proprioceptive input to the CNS. The cervical spine’s mechanoreceptors are directly involved in position sense and sensorimotor control, and WAD populations show measurable deficits in these domains (joint position sense and balance), particularly when dizziness is present. (Mazaheri et al., 2021 (PMCID: PMC8031393))

Neurophysiological research supports the plausibility that spinal manipulation can influence sensorimotor integration. Haavik‑Taylor and colleagues reported that cervical spine manipulation can alter cortical somatosensory processing and sensorimotor integration measured via somatosensory evoked potentials, a finding often interpreted as evidence that manipulation can change central processing of sensory input. (Haavik‑Taylor et al., 2007 (PMID: 17137836)) Complementary evidence from other experimental work indicates that manipulation of dysfunctional spinal segments can alter somatosensory processing at the cortical level, including changes in prefrontal activity in somatosensory processing paradigms. (Lelic et al., 2016 (PMID: 27047694); Lelic et al., 2016 (PMCID: PMC4800094)) While such experimental findings do not automatically translate into predictable clinical outcomes, they strengthen a mechanistic rationale: manual interventions may help “reset” dysfunctional afferent signaling that contributes to guarding and movement avoidance.

Pain modulation: from dorsal horn inhibition to reduced pain sensitivity

A central question in post-accident care is why pain can persist despite time and rest. Mechanistic reviews of spinal manipulation argue that SMT may alter incoming sensory information and central sensory processing, potentially influencing pain pathways through spinal and supraspinal modulation. (Pickar, 2002 (PMID: 14589467))

Experimental research offers converging evidence that SMT can produce hypoalgesia (reduced pain sensitivity) measurable through pain sensitivity testing. A systematic review and meta-analysis on changes in pain sensitivity following spinal manipulation synthesized a broad literature and specifically examined hypoalgesic effects of SMT on pain sensitivity measures. (Coronado et al., 2012 (PMCID: PMC3349049)) In parallel, randomized experimental studies have investigated immediate hypoalgesic effects of SMT on thermal pain sensitivity and proposed dorsal horn inhibition as a plausible contributing mechanism. (George et al., 2006 (PMCID: PMC1578563))

More recent experimental work has also examined pain-evoked brain activity. Provencher and colleagues studied laser-evoked pain and its associated brain responses following spinal manipulation, using methods designed to link peripheral pain input (Aδ and C-fiber activation) with central processing. (Provencher et al., 2021 (PMCID: PMC10717656)) These kinds of studies matter for car accident recovery because central sensitization—documented in whiplash populations—can maintain pain even when tissue injury is no longer the primary driver. (Sterling et al., 2010 (PMID: 20594646); Woolf, 2011 (PMCID: PMC3268359)) A reasonable synthesis is that SMT and related chiropractic interventions may help by decreasing pain sensitivity and improving movement tolerance, thereby facilitating the active exercise and graded exposure that are critical for long-term recovery.

Autonomic regulation: plausible links, emerging signals, and necessary caution

Because the cervical spine interfaces closely with brainstem and autonomic networks (and because stress physiology is tightly coupled to pain), it is understandable that clinicians and patients ask whether chiropractic care can “regulate” the nervous system. The best scientific answer is careful and conditional: there is mechanistic plausibility and some measurable autonomic markers in certain contexts, but findings are inconsistent and should not be overstated.

Clinical research in musculoskeletal pain populations suggests that spinal manipulation can influence some measures of cardiac autonomic control in particular trials. For example, Rodrigues and colleagues reported improvement in resting cardiac autonomic control following upper thoracic manipulation in patients with musculoskeletal pain in a randomized placebo-controlled design. (Rodrigues et al., 2021 (PMID: 33496535)) However, other experimental studies report no specific autonomic effect of thoracic manipulation on cardiovascular autonomic activity, and cervical manipulation research in healthy adults has also found no short-term changes in certain autonomic measures compared with sham procedures. (Picchiottino et al., 2020 (PMCID: PMC6971986); Budgell et al., 2023 (PMID: 38483415))

In whiplash populations, autonomic dysfunction evidence is mixed, with studies supporting altered resting HRV or disrupted BP–pain relationships in some chronic WAD cohorts, and other studies finding no difference in autonomic reactivity to experimental pain. (Koenig et al., 2016 (PMID: 26614574); De Kooning et al., 2013 (PMID: 23703426)) The most defensible clinical framing is therefore: chiropractic care may contribute indirectly to autonomic stabilization by reducing pain and improving sleep and movement confidence; direct “ANS regulation” effects remain an active research area and should be communicated as emerging rather than guaranteed. (Sterling, 2011 (PMCID: PMC3201650); Koenig et al., 2016 (PMID: 26614574))

Clinical evidence for chiropractic and spinal manipulation after car accidents

The clinical literature most directly relevant to chiropractic care after an MVC centers on whiplash-associated disorders (WAD), post-traumatic neck pain, cervicogenic headaches, and cervicogenic dizziness. Evidence quality varies by condition: there are many studies on spinal manipulation for neck pain and headaches, fewer high-quality randomized trials specifically in traffic-collision WAD, and a growing but heterogeneous evidence base for dizziness-related manual therapy.

Evidence summary: injury patterns and chiropractic-relevant outcomes

Motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) commonly produce a predictable cluster of neuromusculoskeletal presentations that chiropractic care often helps address. In acute whiplash-associated disorder (WAD), rapid acceleration–deceleration can strain tissues and trigger early nociception, and in higher-risk cases may involve early spinal cord hyperexcitability (Panjabi, 1998 (PMID: 11415793); Sterling et al., 2010 (PMID: 20594646)). Chiropractic-relevant goals in this stage include reducing pain, restoring cervical range of motion, improving function using measurable tools like the Neck Disability Index, and supporting early, graded movement and exercise (Parera-Turull et al., 2025 (PMCID: PMC11988700); Shaw et al., 2010 (PMID: 20364057)). In chronic WAD, persistent pain and disability may be influenced by central sensitization, ongoing nociceptive input, altered pain processing, and a possible nerve pathology subset (Sterling et al., 2010 (PMID: 20594646); Fundaun et al., 2021 (PMCID: PMC7612893); Woolf, 2011 (PMCID: PMC3268359)). In these cases, care is often oriented toward improving activity tolerance and function, reducing pain sensitivity, addressing sensorimotor control deficits, and integrating education with graded exposure (Sterling, 2011 (PMCID: PMC3201650); Shaw et al., 2010 (PMID: 20364057)). MVCs can also present with post-whiplash headaches that often fit a cervicogenic pattern driven by cervical joint and muscular dysfunction and ongoing cervical nociception (Drottning et al., 2002 (PMID: 12047452)), where measurable goals include reducing headache frequency and intensity while improving neck function and ROM (Fernández et al., 2020 (PMID: 32621321)). Dizziness or unsteadiness after whiplash may reflect altered cervical proprioception and sensorimotor integration, while also requiring attention to vestibular or vascular differentials (Mazaheri et al., 2021 (PMCID: PMC8031393); Morin et al., 2016 (PMCID: PMC4977400)); outcomes commonly tracked include balance measures, dizziness symptom reduction, and ROM improvement, often pairing manual therapy with exercise when appropriate (De Vestel et al., 2022 (PMCID: PMC9487935)). For radicular-type symptoms such as arm pain or paresthesia, potential drivers include nerve root irritation, inflammatory sensitization, disc or facet contributors, and neuropathic mechanisms in a subset (Fundaun et al., 2021 (PMCID: PMC7612893)), so chiropractic-relevant priorities include improving pain and mobility while screening for progressive neurologic deficit and using cautious, evidence-informed manual approaches (Spitzer et al., 1995 (PMID: 7604354); Hurwitz et al., 2002 (PMCID: PMC1447299)).

​

The research base most relevant to post-MVC recovery includes randomized trials, systematic reviews, and lower-level observational or case evidence. A recent single-blind randomized controlled trial in acute Grade II whiplash reported that a cervical specific adjustment technique (manipulation) produced outcomes comparable to a conventional physiotherapy program for pain, function, and cervical ROM across follow-ups, while noting the need for more high-quality trials and suggesting potential utility in the first three months post-collision (Parera-Turull et al., 2025 (PMCID: PMC11988700)). A systematic review of chiropractic management for WAD concluded there is a baseline of evidence suggesting chiropractic care may improve cervical ROM and pain, while emphasizing limitations in evidence quality and the need for more rigorous research (Shaw et al., 2010 (PMID: 20364057)). In broader neck pain populations treated in chiropractic settings, a randomized trial found mobilization was as effective as manipulation for reducing neck pain and disability, and that adjunct heat or electrical muscle stimulation did not meaningfully improve outcomes beyond primary manual care (Hurwitz et al., 2002 (PMCID: PMC1447299)). Additional synthesis supports relevance across common post-collision presentations: a systematic review/meta-analysis reported benefits of SMT for acute neck pain outcomes including pain, disability, and cervical ROM (Diao et al., 2025 (systematic review/meta-analysis of RCTs)), and a systematic review/meta-analysis reported SMT can reduce pain and disability in cervicogenic headache (Fernández et al., 2020 (PMID: 32621321)). For cervicogenic dizziness, a systematic review/meta-analysis reported moderate-quality evidence that manual therapy can reduce dizziness, cervical symptoms, and balance dysfunction, with potentially stronger effects when combined with exercise (De Vestel et al., 2022 (PMCID: PMC9487935)). Mechanistically, evidence also suggests a subset of WAD patients may show nerve pathology or neuropathic pain features, reinforcing neurological screening and individualized treatment selection (Fundaun et al., 2021 (PMCID: PMC7612893)). Lower-level evidence, including retrospective findings in chronic whiplash (Woodward et al., 1996 (retrospective study)) and selected case reports using multimodal programs (Norton et al., 2023 (case report); Fortner et al., 2018 (case report)), may be useful for hypothesis generation but should be interpreted cautiously given design limitations.

​

Taken together, these studies support several clinically meaningful conclusions for a professional, evidence-based discussion of chiropractic care after car accidents:

Chiropractic care is supported most strongly when it is framed as a conservative neuromusculoskeletal intervention for post-collision neck pain patterns, with outcomes tracked using pain intensity, cervical range of motion, and disability measures. (Shaw et al., 2010 (PMID: 20364057); Diao et al., 2025 (PMCID: PMC12044948); Parera‑Turull et al., 2025 (PMCID: PMC11988700)) The evidence base for SMT and chiropractic management in acute WAD specifically is growing, with at least one recent randomized controlled trial showing comparable outcomes to a conventional physiotherapy program in Grade II acute whiplash, though the field acknowledges the need for more high-quality trials. (Parera‑Turull et al., 2025 (PMID: 40218008))

Chiropractic relevance is also strong where common post-MVC sequelae overlap with better-studied conditions—such as cervicogenic headache and nonspecific neck pain—because these conditions are biologically plausible downstream consequences of cervical injury mechanisms and have systematic review evidence supporting SMT benefits. (Fernández et al., 2020 (PMID: 32621321); Hurwitz et al., 2002 (PMCID: PMC1447299)) Finally, for dizziness and balance complaints, the evidence supports manual therapy (often combined with exercise) as a reasonable conservative approach for cervicogenic dizziness, while emphasizing careful differential diagnosis due to vascular and vestibular possibilities. (De Vestel et al., 2022 (PMCID: PMC9487935))

Realistic expectations for patients seeking chiropractic care after an MVC

Patients often ask whether chiropractic care “works” after a car accident. The most accurate answer is: many patients improve with conservative care, and chiropractic interventions can be effective components of recovery for neck pain, headache patterns, and some dizziness presentations, but keep in mind that outcomes vary depending on injury severity, neurophysiological sensitization, psychological stress responses, sleep disruption, and coexisting concussion. (de Zoete et al., 2022 (PMCID: PMC9686416); Kasch & Jensen, 2019 (PMCID: PMC8282153); Sterling, 2011 (PMCID: PMC3201650))

​

In practice, the most meaningful benefit of chiropractic care is often functional: improved ability to turn the head, drive, work, sleep, and tolerate physical activity without flare-ups—supported by objective outcomes such as cervical range of motion and validated disability scales. (Parera‑Turull et al., 2025 (PMCID: PMC11988700); Shaw et al., 2010 (PMID: 20364057)) For patients with persistent symptoms, the neurophysiological framework—nociception, central sensitization, sensorimotor dysfunction, and possible ANS dysregulation—helps explain why a longer, multimodal rehabilitation plan may be required, and why treatment should progressively shift from passive symptom relief toward active restoration of capacity. (Woolf, 2011 (PMCID: PMC3268359); Mazaheri et al., 2021 (PMCID: PMC8031393); Koenig et al., 2016 (PMID: 26614574))

References

  1. Parera‑Turull J, et al. The Effects of Cervical Manipulation Compared with a Conventional Physiotherapy Program for Patients with Acute Whiplash Injury: A Randomized Controlled Trial. (2025). PubMed: 40218008

  2. Shaw L, et al. A systematic review of chiropractic management of adults with Whiplash-Associated Disorders: recommendations for advancing evidence-based practice and research. (2010). PubMed: 20364057

  3. Woodward MN, Cook JC, Gargan MF, Bannister GC. Chiropractic treatment of chronic “whiplash” injuries. Injury. (1996). PubMed: 9039361

  4. Hurwitz EL, et al. A Randomized Trial of Chiropractic Manipulation and Mobilization for Patients With Neck Pain: Clinical Outcomes From the UCLA Neck-Pain Study. (2002). PMC: PMC1447299

  5. Spitzer WO, et al. Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders: redefining “whiplash” and its management. Spine. (1995). PubMed: 7604354

  6. Panjabi MM. Mechanism of Whiplash Injury. (1998). PubMed: 11415793

  7. Panjabi MM, et al. Cervical spine curvature during simulated whiplash. (2004). PubMed: 14659923

  8. Pearson AM, et al. Facet joint kinematics and injury mechanisms during simulated whiplash. (2004). PubMed: 15094535

  9. Chen H, et al. Biomechanics of whiplash injury. (2009). PubMed: 19788851

  10. Sterling M, et al. Sensory hypersensitivity occurs soon after whiplash injury and is associated with poor recovery. (2003). PubMed: 12927623

  11. Sterling M, et al. Differential development of sensory hypersensitivity and a measure of spinal cord hyperexcitability following whiplash injury. (2010). PubMed: 20594646

  12. Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. (2011). PubMed: 20961685

  13. Latremoliere A, Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: a generator of pain hypersensitivity by central neural plasticity. (2009). PubMed: 19712899

  14. Ji RR, et al. Neuroinflammation and central sensitization in chronic and widespread pain. (2018). PMC: PMC6051899

  15. Fundaun J, et al. Nerve pathology and neuropathic pain after whiplash injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2021). PMC: PMC7612893

  16. Mazaheri M, et al. A meta-analysis and systematic review of changes in joint position sense and static standing balance in patients with whiplash-associated disorder. (2021). PMC: PMC8031393

  17. Pickar JG. Neurophysiological effects of spinal manipulation. (2002). PubMed: 14589467

  18. Bialosky JE, et al. The mechanisms of manual therapy in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain: a comprehensive model. (2009). PMC: PMC2775050

  19. Coronado RA, et al. Changes in Pain Sensitivity following Spinal Manipulation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2012). PMC: PMC3349049

  20. Haavik‑Taylor H, et al. Cervical spine manipulation alters sensorimotor integration: a somatosensory evoked potential study. (2007). PubMed: 17137836

  21. Fernández M, et al. Spinal manipulation for the management of cervicogenic headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (2020). PubMed: 32621321

  22. De Vestel C, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the therapeutic management of patients with cervicogenic dizziness. (2022). PMC: PMC9487935

  23. Ernst E. Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review. (2007). PMC: PMC1905885

  24. Gorrell LM, et al. Reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials. (2023). PMC: PMC10163511

  25. Elbel M, et al. Deceleration during “real life” motor vehicle collisions – a sensitive predictor for the risk of sustaining a cervical spine injury? (2009). PMC: PMC2657117

bottom of page