Articlegreen1995

The Relationship Between Methodological Quality and Conclusions in Reviews of Spinal Manipulation

132 citations0/0 files storedJAMA

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between the methodological quality and other characteristics of reviews of spinal manipulation for low back pain on the one hand and the reviewers' conclusions on the effectiveness of manipulation on the other hand. DATA SOURCES: Reviews identified by MEDLINE search, citation tracking, library search, and correspondence with experts. STUDY SELECTION: English- or Dutch-language reviews published up to 1993 dealing with spinal manipulation for low back pain that include at least two randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA EXTRACTION: Methodological quality was assessed using a standardized criteria list applied independently by two assessors (range, 0% to 100%). Other extracted characteristics were the comprehensiveness of the search, selective citation of studies, language, inclusion of non-RCTs, type of publication, reviewers' professional backgrounds, and publication in a spinal manipulation journal or book. The reviewers' conclusions were classified as negative, neutral, or positive. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 51 reviews were assessed, 17 of which were neutral and 34 positive. The methodological quality was low, with a median score of 23%. Nine of the 10 methodologically best reviews were positive. Other factors associated with a positive reviewers' conclusion were review of spinal manipulation only, inclusion of a spinal manipulator in the review team, and a comprehensive literature search. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the reviews concluded that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for low back pain. Although, in particular, the reviews with a relatively high methodological quality had a positive conclusion, strong conclusions were precluded by the overall low quality of the reviews. More empirical research on the review methods applied to other therapies in other professional fields is needed to further explore our findings about the factors related to a positive reviewers' conclusion.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 132 citations exist upstream.

References

1994Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews 1995Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists 1987Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials 1987The Medical Review Article: State of the Science 1995Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a tower of babel bias?1992Meta-analysis: State-of-the-Science 1988Guidelines for reading literature reviews.1994Systematic Reviews: Checklists for review articles

Cited by

2001A Critical Review of Reviews on the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain 2003Research methods: Managing primary study quality in meta‐analyses 2002A Comparison of the Quality of Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews Published in Paper-Based Journals 1998Balneotherapy and Quality Assessment: Interobserver Reliability of the Maastricht Criteria List and the Need for Blinded Quality Assessment 2002Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.