ArticleJournal of chiropractic medicine2012
Interexaminer reliability of the Johnston and Friedman percussion scan of the thoracic spine: secondary data analysis using modified methods.
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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interexaminer reliability of cervical motion palpation using continuous measures and rater confidence levels.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to perform a secondary analysis using modified methods of previously reported data to analyze the amount of examiner concordance in the Johnston and Friedman percussion scan of the most fixated spinal level.
methodA 2001 study evaluated interexaminer reliability of the percussive method of Johnston and Friedman for detecting altered segmental mobility (somatic dysfunction, spinal/segmental dysfunction, or chiropractic subluxation) in the thoracic spine. The original reported level of agreement using the κ statistic for discrete measures was only 0.07, judged "slight." The data were reformatted to permit recalculating the degree of interexaminer agreement using the intraclass correlation coefficient statistic, which uses continuous analysis, unlike κ that performs discrete analysis. Following an initial calculation, the data were modified to reflect the caudally increasing vertebral height of the thoracic vertebrae.
resultsThe reformatted and modified data, intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1) = 0.253 (0.100,0.482), showed the findings as "poor," which is better interexaminer agreement for percussion motion palpation than the original reported κ value judged as "slight."
conclusionsReanalyzing the data using an alternative statistical method showed greater interexaminer reliability than was originally reported. This secondary analysis demonstrates how study results may vary depending on the experimental design and statistical methods chosen for analysis.
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.