ArticleJournal of chiropractic medicine2012
A case series evaluating the accuracy of manual muscle testing for predicting fetal sex.
Article in Journal of chiropractic medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of exercise, spinal manipulation, and neuro emotional technique for the treatment of pregnancy-related low back pain.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate if manual muscle testing (MMT) could identify fetal sex in women who did not know the sex of their babies. The null hypothesis was that MMT is no more accurate than chance.
methodsA prospective case series of 27 sequential pregnant patients who did not know the sex of their fetus were included in this study. The examiner was also blind to the sex of the fetus. Manual muscle testing was evaluated after the mother stated "I am having a boy." Likelihood ratios, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated.
resultsFourteen girl babies and 13 boy babies were born. Manual muscle testing accurately predicted the sex 13 times. The positive likelihood ratio was 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-2.03), sensitivity was 0.40, specificity was 0.54, positive predictive value was 0.46, and negative predictive value was 0.44.
conclusionManual muscle testing was no better than chance at predicting fetal sex in this case series.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.