ArticleThe Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association2020
Potential publication bias in chiropractic and spinal manipulation research listed on clinicaltrials.gov.
Article in The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement of primary outcomes in chiropractic-related clinical trials registered in clinicaltrials.gov with corresponding publication.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2021Article
- Letter to the editor: the global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical trial registries are used to help improve transparency in trial reporting. Our study aimed to identify potential publication bias in chiropractic and spinal manipulation research by assessing data drawn from published studies listed in clinincaltrials.gov.
methodsWe searched the clinicaltrials.gov registry database for completed trials tagged with the key indexing terms chiropractic or spinal manipulation. We assessed if the trial registry had been updated with data, then searched for publications corresponding to the registered trials. Finally, the frequency of positive or negative results was determined from published studies.
resultsFor the term 'chiropractic', 63% of studies supported the intervention and 52% supported the intervention for the term 'spinal manipulation'. DISCUSSION: Publication bias in chiropractic and spinal manipulation research listed in clinicaltrials.gov appears to occur. Further work may help understand why this happens and what may be done to mitigate this moving forward.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32476671PMC7250511W3030630287What 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.