Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21629461›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association2011

A narrative review of the published chiropractic literature regarding older patients from 2001-2010.

Brian J Gleberzon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Community-based falls prevention: lessons from an Interprofessional Mobility Clinic.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2014
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The role of chiropractic care in older adults.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Brian J GleberzonProfessor and Chair, Department of Applied Chiropractic, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, 6100 Leslie St. Toronto, ON M2H 3J1. E-mail: bgleberzon@cmcc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe purpose of this article was to perform a narrative review of the chiropractic literature regarding older patients between 2001 and 2010.

methodsA three step search strategy of the literature involved electronic searching, hand searching and reference tracking.

resultsOne hundred and eighty eight articles germane to chiropractic geriatric practice and education were retrieved. DISCUSSION: Compared to the review of the literature conducted prior to 2000, the number of references on chiropractic geriatric education increased from 3 to 11, the number of demographic studies increased from 9 to 18, the number of case reports increased from 25 to 83, the number of clinical trials increased from 4 to 21 (only two RCTs found) and the number of references on clinical guidelines and general clinical information increased from 18 to 55.

conclusionThis review found 188 retrievable articles available to practitioners to effectively care plan for their older patients, a better than three fold increase in the number of references found during a similar review conducted at the end of the previous decade. However, there is clearly a gap in the evidence base of chiropractic geriatric care, particularly the under-representation of clinical trials of all kinds involving older chiropractic patients.

Indexed as

chiropracticgeriatricolder patient

Identifiers

PMID21629461
PMCPMC3095583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.