Flawed trials, flawed analysis: why CBP should avoid rating itself.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

1. An investigation into the chiropractic practice and communication of routine, repetitive radiographic imaging for the location of postural misalignments.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2024
   Review
2. An investigation into the chiropractic practice and communication of routine repetitive radiographic imaging for the location of postural misalignments.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2024
   Review
3. Restoring lumbar lordosis: a systematic review of controlled trials utilizing Chiropractic Bio PhysicsJournal of physical therapy science · 2020
   Review
4. Doing the Same Thing and Expecting a Different Outcome: It Is Time for a Questioning Philosophy and Theory-Driven Chiropractic Research.Journal of chiropractic humanities · 2019
   Review
5. Historical influence on the practice of chiropractic radiology: Part I - a survey of Diplomates of the American Chiropractic College of Radiology.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2017
   Article
6. Clinical effectiveness of the activator adjusting instrument in the management of musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2012
   Article
7. Use of fallacious arguments, Ad Hominem attacks, and biased 'expert opinions' can make CBP research 'appear flawed'.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2006
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Use of fallacious arguments, Ad Hominem attacks, and biased 'expert opinions' can make CBP research 'appear flawed'.2006
• Comment on
  Evidence-based protocol for structural rehabilitation of the spine and posture: review of clinical biomechanics of posture (CBP) publications.2005

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.