Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27412625›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2016

Evidence-based practice, research utilization, and knowledge translation in chiropractic: a scoping review.

André E Bussières, Fadi Al Zoubi, Kent Stuber, Simon D French, Jill Boruff, John Corrigan, Aliki Thomas

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Low-value care in musculoskeletal health care: Is there a way forward?Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2022
    Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

André E BussièresSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Canada. andre.bussieres@mcgill.ca.
Fadi Al ZoubiSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
Kent StuberDivision of Graduate Education and Research, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Canada.
Simon D FrenchSchool of Rehabilitation Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Jill BoruffSchulich Library of Science and Engineering, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
John CorriganThe Canadian Chiropractic Guideline Initiative, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Aliki ThomasSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
McGill University · CACanadian Memorial Chiropractic College · CACentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation · CAQueen's University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence-based practice (EBP) gaps are widespread across health disciplines. Understanding factors supporting the uptake of evidence can inform the design of strategies to narrow these EBP gaps. Although research utilization (RU) and the factors associated with EBP have been reported in several health disciplines, to date this area has not been reviewed comprehensively in the chiropractic profession. The purpose of this review was to report on the current state of knowledge on EBP, RU, and knowledge translation (KT) in chiropractic.

methodsA scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework was used to systematically select and summarize existing literature. Searches were conducted using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms from the earliest date available in each database to May 2015. Quantitative and thematic analyses of the selected literature were conducted.

resultsNearly 85 % (56/67) of the included studies were conducted in Canada, USA, UK or Australia. Thematic analysis for the three categories (EBP, RU, KT) revealed two themes related to EBP (attitudes and beliefs of chiropractors; implementation of EBP), three related to RU (guideline adherence; frequency and sources of information accessed; and perceived value of websites and search engines), and three related to KT (knowledge practice gaps; barriers and facilitators to knowledge use; and selection, tailoring, and implementation of interventions). EBP gaps were noted in the areas of assessment of activity limitation, determination of psychosocial factors influencing pain, general health indicators, establishing a prognosis, and exercise prescription. While most practitioners believed EBP and research to be important and a few studies suggested that traditional and online educational strategies could improve patient care, use of EBP and guideline adherence varied widely.

conclusionFindings suggest that the majority of chiropractors hold favourable attitudes and beliefs toward EBP. However, much remains to be done for chiropractors to routinely apply evidence into clinical practice. Educational strategies aimed at practicing chiropractors can lead to more EBP and improved patient care. The chiropractic profession requires more robust dissemination and implementation research to improve guideline adherence and patient health outcomes.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeManipulation, ChiropracticTranslational Research, BiomedicalHumansChiropracticEvidence-based practiceKnowledge translationResearch utilizationScoping review

Identifiers

PMID27412625
PMCPMC4944433
OpenAlexW2472328695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.