Articlegold2022

Differences between experimental and placebo arms in manual therapy trials: a methodological review

Giandomenico D’Alessandro · Nuria Ruffini · Alessandro Aquino · Mattia Innocenti · Marco Tramontano · Francesco Cerritelli

18 citations0/0 files storedBMC Medical Research Methodology

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 Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To measure the specific effectiveness of a given treatment in a randomised controlled trial, the intervention and control groups have to be similar in all factors not distinctive to the experimental treatment. The similarity of these non-specific factors can be defined as an equality assumption. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the equality assumptions in manual therapy trials. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified through the following databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, Scholar Google, clinicaltrial.gov, the Cochrane Library, chiloras/MANTIS, PubMed Europe, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Sciencedirect. Studies investigating the effect of any manual intervention compared to at least one type of manual control were included. Data extraction and qualitative assessment were carried out independently by four reviewers, and the summary of results was reported following the PRISMA statement. RESULT: Out of 108,903 retrieved studies, 311, enrolling a total of 17,308 patients, were included and divided into eight manual therapy trials categories. Equality assumption elements were grouped in three macro areas: patient-related, context-related and practitioner-related items. Results showed good quality in the reporting of context-related equality assumption items, potentially because largely included in pre-existent guidelines. There was a general lack of attention to the patient- and practitioner-related equality assumption items. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that the similarity between experimental and sham interventions is limited, affecting, therefore, the strength of the evidence. Based on the results, methodological aspects for planning future trials were discussed and recommendations to control for equality assumption were provided.

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 — 18 citations exist upstream.

References

2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews 1988Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.1988Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.2014Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide 2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2000Psychometric properties of the credibility/expectancy questionnaire 1993A comparison of three structural models for personality: The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five.1995Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a tower of babel bias?

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.