Chiropractic Literature Research Articles

The impact of chiropractic care on prescription opioid use for non-cancer spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundIn recent studies, receipt of chiropractic care has been associated with lower odds of receiving prescription opioids and, among those already prescribed, reduced doses of opioids among patients with non-cancer spine pain. These findings suggest that access to chiropractic services may reduce reliance on opioids for musculoskeletal pain.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of chiropractic care on initiation, or continued use, of prescription opioids among patients with non-cancer spine pain.MethodsWe will search for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from database inception to June 2024. Article screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment will be conducted independently by pairs of reviewers. We will conduct separate analyses for RCTs and observational studies and pool binary outcomes (e.g. prescribed opioid receipt, long-term opioid use, and higher versus lower opioid dose) as odds ratios (ORs) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When studies provide hazard ratios (HRs) or relative risks (RRs) for time-to-event data (e.g. time-to-first opioid prescription) or incidence rates (number of opioid prescriptions over time), we will first convert them to an OR before pooling. Continuous outcomes such as pain intensity, sleep quality, or morphine equivalent dose will be pooled as weighted mean differences with associated 95% CIs. We will conduct meta-analyses using random-effects models and explore sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses and meta-regression. We will evaluate the certainty of evidence of all outcomes using the GRADE approach and the credibility of all subgroup effects with ICEMAN criteria. Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA statement and MOOSE guidelines.DiscussionOur review will establish the current evidence informing the impact of chiropractic care on new or continued prescription opioid use for non-cancer spine pain. We will disseminate our results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. The findings of our review will be of interest to patients, health care providers, and policy-makers.Trial registrationSystematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023432277.

Global status of chiropractic education research: a scoping review protocol.

The objective of this scoping review is to map the volume and nature (topics, study designs, regions) of chiropractic education research relating to chiropractic learners and programs worldwide. Education of the health workforce is critical to reach population health goals. Chiropractic educational programs are expanding globally; however, the state of chiropractic education research is not known. A better understanding of the volume and nature of chiropractic education research will inform education research priorities and development of chiropractic programs, and assist with preparing a stronger chiropractic workforce to address world health goals. This scoping review will consider articles that study students, faculty, administration, staff, graduates, and programs in any chiropractic education setting, including graduate, clinical, postgraduate, and specialty training, in any country. Articles on non-educational topics or clinical research will be excluded. This review will follow the JBI scoping review methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The databases to be searched include PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde, and Educational Resources Information Center, from their inception. All languages will be considered. Two reviewers will independently screen records using predefined eligibility criteria and extract data using tables. Data extracted from eligible articles will include study design, participants, region, and topics. The results will be presented in a narrative summary, with data presented in tabular and diagrammatic formats. Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9b3ap.

Medication recommendations for treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

The purpose of this systematic review was to ascertain guideline-recommended pharmaceutical approaches to lumbosacral radicular symptoms, assess the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool, and qualitatively synthesize the guideline recommendations. Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We included guidelines published between January 1, 2017, and January 9, 2022, written in the English language, related to radiculopathy, sciatica, and/or low back pain with leg pain, and that provided recommendations on oral medication. The review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the protocol was pre-registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Eligibility screening, full-text review, extraction of information pertaining to pharmacological management, and synthesis of results were performed independently by two authors and a third investigator was recruited to arbitrate any disagreements. The AGREE II tool was administered by four authors to appraise CPG quality. After screening 413 citations and assessing 37 full-text articles, 11 CPGs met the inclusion criteria. They represented seven countries (Belgium, Canada, England, France, Japan, Korea, and United States) and three continents (Asia, Europe, and North America), as well as the Global Spine Care Initiative aimed at a worldwide presence. The mean overall AGREE II score was 87.1% (standard deviation [SD] 12.6%), generally reflecting high-quality CPGs. The highest domain mean score was for Clarity of Presentation (96.7%, SD 4.4%), and the lowest was Applicability (75.6%, SD 22.8%). Five classes of medications were recommended by at least one CPG: anticonvulsants, antidepressants, oral corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids. The most common medication class recommended by the CPGs for lumbar radiculopathy was antidepressants. No CPGs recommended prescribing acetaminophen, benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, or antibiotics. There was very little agreement between the CPGs, and all the medication classes had at least one CPG recommended against its use. Three guidelines reviewed did not recommend any medications due to lack of supporting literature, and instead recommended nonpharmacologic therapy.

Systematic reviews of osteopathic care: protocol for an umbrella review

Background The practice of osteopathy differs around the world. However, the dominant practice is that of manual therapy interventions guided by assessment of the neuromusculoskeletal system. Patient populations treated by osteopaths vary across the lifespan and include groups with more-nuanced care requirements such as those who are pregnant. The volume of evidence for osteopathy care is increasing. Objectives This umbrella review seeks to identify systematic reviews of osteopathic care with the purpose of highlighting current knowledge about the high-level evidence underpinning the profession. Methods The umbrella review will be conducted consistent with the Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review methodology. Articles will be limited to those describing osteopathic care. An initial search did not identify a similar study and nor is one registered. A search of MEDLINE and CINAHL informed the search syntax. A full search will be performed across MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, Osteopathic Research Web, AMED, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Osteopathic Medicine Digital Repository (OSTMED.DR). The reference lists of included articles will be reviewed to identify potentially relevant systematic reviews. Data will be extracted from each systematic review and presented in tabular format. Conclusion The umbrella review will synthesise what is known about osteopathic care as described in systematic reviews. The review will inform stakeholders about the role of osteopathic care in the health system and provide recommendations for future research. The findings will be submitted for peer-review publication.

Developing an initial set of quality indicators for chiropractic care: a scoping review

BackgroundQuality indicators are standardized, evidence-based measures of health care quality. Currently, there is no basic set of quality indicators for chiropractic care published in peer-reviewed literature. The goal of this research is to develop a preliminary set of quality indicators, measurable with administrative data.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review searching PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases. Eligible articles were published after 2011, in English, developing/reporting best practices and clinical guidelines specifically developed for, or directly applicable to, chiropractic care. Eligible non-peer-reviewed sources such as quality measures published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Royal College of Chiropractors quality standards were also included. Following a stepwise eligibility determination process, data abstraction identified specific statements from included sources that can conceivably be measured with administrative data. Once identified, statements were transformed into potential indicators by: 1) Generating a brief title and description; 2) Documenting a source; 3) Developing a metric; and 4) Assigning a Donabedian category (structure, process, outcome). Draft indicators then traversed a 5-step assessment: 1) Describes a narrowly defined structure, process, or outcome; 2) Quantitative data can conceivably be available; 3) Performance is achievable; 4) Metric is relevant; 5) Data are obtainable within reasonable time limits. Indicators meeting all criteria were included in the final set.ResultsLiterature searching revealed 2562 articles. After removing duplicates and conducting eligibility determination, 18 remained. Most were clinical guidelines (n = 10) and best practice recommendations (n = 6), with 1 consensus and 1 clinical standards development study. Data abstraction and transformation produced 204 draft quality indicators. Of those, 57 did not meet 1 or more assessment criteria. After removing duplicates, 70 distinct indicators remained. Most indicators matched the Donabedian category of process (n = 35), with 31 structure and 4 outcome indicators. No sources were identified to support indicator development from patient perspectives.ConclusionsThis article proposes a preliminary set of 70 quality indicators for chiropractic care, theoretically measurable with administrative data and largely obtained from electronic health records. Future research should assess feasibility, achieve stakeholder consensus, develop additional indicators including those considering patient perspectives, and study relationships with clinical outcomes.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework, https://osf.io/t7kgm

Effectiveness of thoracic spine manipulation for upper quadrant musculoskeletal disorders: protocol for a systematic review

IntroductionUpper quadrant musculoskeletal disorders (UQMD), comprising of cranial, cervical, shoulder and upper extremity disorders, are among the most frequently reported disorders in clinical practice. Thoracic high velocity low amplitude thrust...

Benefits and Harms of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Treating Recent and Persistent Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the benefits and harms of cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for treating neck pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Chiropractic Literature Index bibliographic databases, and grey literature sources, up to June 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating SMT compared to guideline-recommended and nonrecommended interventions, sham SMT, and no intervention for adults with neck pain were eligible for our systematic review. Prespecified outcomes included pain, range of motion, disability, health-related quality of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogenous RCTs at short-term and long-term outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach to judge the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs. There was very low to low certainty evidence that SMT was more effective than recommended interventions for improving pain at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.97) and long term (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.16), and for reducing disability at short-term (SMD, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.42) and long term (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.06). Transient side effects only were found (eg, muscle soreness). CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):510-528. Epub: 10 August 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11708.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Does Targeting a Specific Vertebral Level Make a Difference?: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine whether targeting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), by applying the intervention to a specific vertebral level, produces superior clinical outcomes than a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched up to May 31, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing targeted SMT (mobilization or manipulation) to a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain, and measuring the effects on pain intensity and patient-reported disability. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data extraction, risk of bias, and evaluation of the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach were performed by 2 authors independently. Meta-analyses were performed using the restricted maximum likelihood method. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 931 patients) were included. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between targeted SMT and a nontargeted approach for pain intensity at postintervention (weighted mean difference = -0.20 [95% CI: -0.51, 0.10]) and at follow-up (weighted mean difference = 0.05 [95% CI: -0.26, 0.36]). For patient-reported disability, there was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference at postintervention (standardized mean difference = -0.04 [95% CI: -0.36, 0.29]) and at follow-up (standardized mean difference = -0.05 [95% CI: -0.24, 0.13]). Adverse events were reported in 4 trials, and were minor and evenly distributed between groups. CONCLUSION: Targeting a specific vertebral level when administering SMT for patients with nonspecific low back pain did not result in improved outcomes on pain intensity and patient-reported disability compared to a nontargeted approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):1-11. Epub: 28 July 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11962.

Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and depend on the topic of interest. The Cochrane Handbook suggests searching at least the following three databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. However, this is not always sufficient for reviews on the musculoskeletal field in general.This study aimed to examine the frequency and choice of databases used by researchers in SRs of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Secondly, to analyze the RCTs included in the SRs to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient literature searches for SRs of SMT.MethodsSRs investigating the effect of SMT on any patient-reported outcome measure were identified through searches in PubMed and Epistemonikos (all entries till date of search February 25, 2022). For each SR, databases searched and included RCTs were collected. RCTs were searched individually in nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Index to Chiropractic Literature, PEDro, and AMED). Coverage rates were calculated using the number of retrieved RCTs by the database or combinations of databases divided by the total number of RCTs.ResultsEighty-five SRs published met the inclusion criteria, and 442 unique RCTs were retrieved. The most frequently searched database was MEDLINE/PubMed. Cochrane Library had the highest overall coverage rate and contained the third most unique RCTs. While a 100% retrieval was not possible, as 18 RCTs could not be retrieved in any of the nine databases, the combination of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro retrieved all possible RCTs with a combined coverage rate of 95.9%.ConclusionsFor SRs on SMT, we recommend using the combination suggested by the Cochrane Handbook of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and in addition, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Google Scholar might be used additionally as a tool for searching gray literature and quality assurance.

Chiropractic Treatments and Scoliosis-specific Exercise Therapy as An Alternative to Bracing for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Narrative Review

This narrative review aimed to investigate the efficacy of chiropractic treatments and scoliosis-specific exercise (SSE) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) as an alternative treatment for bracing. We searched the PubMed, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Spine Journal, BioMed Central, Google Scholar, and Research Gate databases to identify the most current reviews (2018-2021). A total of 156 papers were identified, of which six were finally included in the analysis, after excluding 150 that were either duplicate studies or failed to meet the inclusion criteria. However, one paper was included despite failure to meet the inclusion criteria because we believed the findings were significant, and hence, it was worth reviewing. All the reviewed papers reported the benefits of exercise and chiropractic as part of AIS management. Only one study showed that SSE alone slows curve progression, whereas the other six papers (four papers investigating chiropractic intervention alone and two investigating SSE alone) showed significant curve reduction after analyzing the X-ray findings. The other outcomes included increased flexibility, greater trunk rotation angle, and improved quality of life. The quality of the evidence in these studies ranged from very low to moderate. Despite the lack of high-quality research, the evidence reviewed illustrates the benefits of chiropractic treatments and Schroth therapy for AIS patients. The findings also suggest that SSEs and chiropractic manipulations can be used either alone or in combination as an alternative to bracing.

A systematic review of chiropractic care for fall prevention: rationale, state of the evidence, and recommendations for future research

BackgroundFalls in older adults are a significant and growing public health concern. There are multiple risk factors associated with falls that may be addressed within the scope of chiropractic training and licensure. Few attempts have been made to summarize existing evidence on multimodal chiropractic care and fall risk mitigation. Therefore, the broad purpose of this review was to summarize this research to date.BodySystematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PEDro, and Index of Chiropractic Literature. Eligible study designs included randomized controlled trials (RCT), prospective non-randomized controlled, observational, and cross-over studies in which multimodal chiropractic care was the primary intervention and changes in gait, balance and/or falls were outcomes. Risk of bias was also assessed using the 8-item Cochrane Collaboration Tool. The original search yielded 889 articles; 21 met final eligibility including 10 RCTs. One study directly measured the frequency of falls (underpowered secondary outcome) while most studies assessed short-term measurements of gait and balance. The overall methodological quality of identified studies and findings were mixed, limiting interpretation regarding the potential impact of chiropractic care on fall risk to qualitative synthesis.ConclusionLittle high-quality research has been published to inform how multimodal chiropractic care can best address and positively influence fall prevention. We propose strategies for building an evidence base to inform the role of multimodal chiropractic care in fall prevention and outline recommendations for future research to fill current evidence gaps.

82. Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: an updated systematic review

82. Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: an updated systematic review

Minimal clinical data sets for spine-related musculoskeletal disorders in primary care and outpatient settings: a scoping review protocol

IntroductionLack of standardised clinical data collection may lead to reduced quality in musculoskeletal (MSK)-related clinical care and research. Little is known about the availability and characteristics of minimal clinical data...

Manual therapy interventions in the management of adults with prior cervical spine surgery for degenerative conditions: a scoping review

ObjectiveCervical spine surgeries for degenerative conditions are rapidly increasing. Cervical post-surgery syndrome consisting of chronic pain, adjacent segment disease, recurrent disc herniation, facet joint pain, and/or epidural scarring is common. Repeat surgery is regularly recommended, though patients are often unable to undergo or decline further surgery. Manual therapy is included in clinical practice guidelines for neck pain and related disorders, however clinical guidance for utilization of manual therapy in adults with prior cervical spine surgery is lacking. This study aimed to synthesize available literature and characterize outcomes and adverse events for manual therapy interventions in adults with prior cervical spine surgery due to degenerative conditions.MethodsPreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews was followed. PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, physiotherapy evidence database, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched from inception through October 2021. English-language literature comprised of randomized clinical trials (RCT), case–control, cohort, and case report designs were included. Adults undergoing manual therapy, with or without combination of other interventions, with prior cervical spine surgery due to degenerative conditions were included.ResultsTwelve articles were identified, including 10 case reports, 1 low-quality RCT, and 1 acceptable-quality RCT. Eight case reports described 9 patients with history of fusion surgery. Two case reports described 2 patients with history of discectomy. One case report described one patient with separate operations of a discectomy at one level and a fusion at another level. One case report described 2 patients with history of cervical disc replacement surgery. The two RCTs included 63 and 86 participants, respectively. Use of manual joint mobilization/manipulation, table/instrument assisted mobilization/manipulation, and multimodal interventions were described in eligible studies. Favorable clinical outcomes were reported in 10 studies. Six case reports/series involving 8 patients described use of unclassified forms of manual therapy. Eight studies described the use of multimodal interventions along with manual therapy. One study described high patient satisfaction. Two studies, accounting for 3 patients, reported serious adverse events.ConclusionsThere is a lack of literature informing evidence related to clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and adverse events associated with manual therapy for patients with prior cervical spine surgery due to degenerative conditions. High-quality studies of higher-level hierarchical study design are needed to understand the clinical utility and safety profile of manual therapy for this population.

Effectiveness of manual therapy applied to craniomandibular structures in temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review.

Within physical therapy, manual therapy is known to be effective for managing temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). However, manual therapy is a broad term including different approaches applied to different body regions. This is the first systematic review that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of manual therapy applied specifically to the craniomandibular structures (Cranio-Mandibular Manual Therapy [CMMT]) on pain and maximum mouth opening in people with TMD. This systematic review was developed based on a pre-determined published protocol which was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019160213). A search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ZETOC, Web of Science, SCOPUS, PEDro, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Best Evidence, EBM reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Index to Chiropractic Literature ChiroAccess and Google Scholar databases was conducted from inception until October 2020. Randomised controlled trials comparing the effect of CMMT on pain and maximum mouth opening versus other types of treatment in TMDs were included. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias with the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials and evaluated the overall quality of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. A total of 2720 records were screened, of which only 6 (293 participants) satisfied the inclusion criteria. All studies showed some concerns in risk of bias, except for one, which was high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes because of high heterogeneity and small sample sizes. All studies showed a significant improvement in pain and maximum mouth opening for CMMT from baseline in the mid-term, but only two showed superiority compared to other interventions. Given the high heterogeneity and small sample sizes of the included studies, a quantitative synthesis was not performed. There is the need for future high methodology research investigating different manual therapy techniques applied to different regions and different populations (e.g., chronic versus acute TMD) to determine what is most effective for pain and maximum mouth opening in patients with TMDs.

Structural rehabilitation of the cervical lordosis and forward head posture: a selective review of Chiropractic BioPhysics® case reports.

[Purpose] To characterize the case report evidence of Chiropractic BioPhysics® (CBP®) technique methods applied to increase cervical lordosis and improve forward head posture. [Methods] The CBP Non-profit website as well as PubMed and Index to Chiropractic literature were searched for case reports/series documenting the increase of cervical lordosis and improvement of forward head posture in the treatment of various craniocervical spinal disorders by CBP technique methods. [Results] Sixty patients were reported in 41 unique manuscripts detailing the improvement in cervical spine alignment by CBP technique methods. On average, there was a 14° improvement in cervical lordosis and a 12 mm reduction in forward head position after 40 treatments over 16 weeks with a 5-point reduction in pain rating scores. Thirty-eight percent of cases included follow-up showing only slight loss of lordosis, but maintenance of pain and disability improvements after an average of 1.5 treatments per month for 1.8 years. [Conclusion] An abundance of reports document improvement in craniocervical and other ailments by CBP methods that increase cervical lordosis. Routine radiographic imaging of the spine is recommended as it is safe and the only current practical method of screening for critical biomechanical biomarkers of sagittal spine alignment.

Non-operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: an updated systematic review

ObjectivesNeurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a growing health problem in older adults. We updated our previous Cochrane review (2013) to determine the effectiveness of non-operative treatment...

Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice.

BackgroundA variety of assessments to determine leg length discrepancy (LLD) is used in clinical practice and evidence about validity and reliability may differ.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to identify and describe the validity and reliability of different assessments and imaging diagnostics for the determination of LLD.Materials and methodsThe review was conducted following the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The databases Medline (PubMed) and Index to Chiropractic Literature were systematically searched. Studies regarding clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics for the diagnosis of LLD, which reported the clinimetric properties for assessment of LLD, were included and screened for methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool for validity studies and the Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability (QAREL) tool for reliability studies.ResultsThirty-seven articles on clinical assessments and 15 studies on imaging diagnostics met the eligibility criteria. Thirteen studies on the validity of clinical assessments and six studies on the validity of imaging diagnostics had a low risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability for all domains. One study on the reliability of clinical assessments and one study on the reliability of imaging diagnostics had a low risk of bias. Main limitations were, that an analysis of sensitivity and specificity was only performed in a few studies and that a valid reference standard was lacking in numerous studies on clinical assessments.ConclusionsFor the clinical assessment of LLD, the block test appears to be the most useful method. Full-length standing anteroposterior radiography seems to be the most valid and reliable method and may be used as global reference standard to measure the anatomic LLD when comparing clinical methods and imaging diagnostics.

Clinical decision-making for spinal manipulation for persistent spinal pain following lumbar surgery: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

IntroductionThere are limited available research and guidance regarding the use of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in patients with low back-related symptoms following lumbar spine surgery, a condition called persistent spinal...

Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol

BackgroundMixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods.ObjectiveTo quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality.DiscussionThis will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.