Clinical evaluation tools: a survey of doctors of chiropractic and students at one chiropractic college.

Barbara A Mansholt, Robert D Vining

Open access · greenAbstract read

In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact, top 95% of its field

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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Barbara A MansholtAssociate Professor, Clinic, Palmer College of Chiropractic.

Robert D ViningAssociate Professor, Senior Research Clinician, Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic.

Palmer College of Chiropractic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe reliability and validity of many evaluation tools leading to clinical decision-making for spinal manipulation are varied. We surveyed senior students and DC employees at one chiropractic college regarding 1) which analysis tools should be used and 2) factors that influence their choices.

methodsThe survey queried which tools should be used on a routine patient encounter. Clinical evaluation tools included palpation, skin temperature analysis, leg length analysis, and radiographs.

resultsSurveys were collected from 58 doctors of chiropractic (DCs) and 74 students. Respondents from both groups reported to most commonly use static palpation, followed by motion palpation and leg length analysis. DC respondents ranked evidence and personal experience high for rationale; student respondents frequently chose patient preference.

conclusionDC and student respondents reported use of clinical evaluation tools consistently. However, some variations in rationale were noted. It is important for educators to provide a balanced presentation of the strengths and limitations of clinical analysis procedures to support the development of well-justified evidence-based clinical decision-making skills.

Indexed as

chiropracticdecision makingpalpationspinal manipulation

Identifiers

PMID27069264

PMCPMC4807689

OpenAlexW2469989044

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.