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

Minnucci, Silvia; Innocenti, Tiziano; Salvioli, Stefano; Giagio, Silvia; Yousif, Marzia Stella; Riganelli, Francesca; Carletti, Chiara; Feller, Daniel; Brindisino, Fabrizio; Faletra, Agostino; Chiarotto, Alessandro; Mourad, Firas

doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11708

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 107 publications

(206 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This includes inadequate randomisation and allocation concealment [ 26 – 31 ], which can introduce allocation bias and confounding through systematic differences in prognostic factors between groups. In addition, missing outcome data or loss to follow-up, especially if unbalanced between groups, is a common concern [ 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 ]. Researchers should also be thoughtful about using appropriate outcome measures that are both valid and reliable.…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, issues around heterogeneity and appropriate statistical tests in reviews should be carefully considered to ensure reviews are informative for clinicians and other researchers. It is also important to recognise that the certainty of findings from a systematic review are directly influenced by the quality of the included studies, and SMT reviews frequently report low certainty due to the low quality of included studies [ 26 , 27 , 30 ].…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers

Aspinall,

Nim,

Hartvigsen

et al. 2024

Chiropr Man Therap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research. Main text This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors. Conclusions This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

show abstract

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers

Aspinall,

Nim,

Hartvigsen

et al. 2024

Chiropr Man Therap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Conn et al [51], a meta-analysis that excluded gray literature was not suitable for stating the exact effect size; therefore, this study highlighted the importance of gray literature. Moreover, recent meta-analyses (for example [52,53]) have included gray literature to show clear results; therefore, this study searched not only common articles but also gray literature, such as dissertations.…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between Athletes’ Big Five Model of Personality and Athletic Performance: Meta-Analysis

Yang,

Choi

et al. 2024

Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic interest in athletic performance is ongoing. To examine the correlation between athletic performance and athletes’ personality types, data extraction in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was completed in October 2021, and a meta-analysis was performed using 180 data from 18 selected papers using the “meta” package version 4.8-4 of R Studio 3.3.3. As a result, these selected studies proved to have reliable quality in proceeding with this study via quality assessment. The overall effect of personality on athletic performance (AP) was ESr = 0.124, p < 0.01. Furthermore, only conscientiousness (ESr = 0.178, p < 0.001) and extroversion (ESr = 0.145, p < 0.01), among the five personality types, showed statistically significant results, and these two personality types had a positive correlation with performance. In the publication bias test, this study found that (a) agreeableness had a publication bias; but, with an additional test using trim-and-fill, (b) the effect was not significant enough to be considered. In addition, the analysis of the moderating effects was conducted in four aspects, and all moderating effect analyses showed statistically significant differences between the groups, demonstrating the heterogeneity of this study. Therefore, this study found a significant relationship between personality and athletic performance and showed the importance of conscientiousness and extroversion.

show abstract