Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34526065›Full record

ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2021

Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol.

Peter C Emary, Kent J Stuber, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Mark Oremus, Paul S Nolet, Jennifer V Nash, Craig A Bauman, Carla Ciraco, Rachel J Couban, Jason W Busse

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

10 authors.

Peter C EmaryDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. emaryp@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-3044-8415
Kent J StuberDepartment of Graduate Education and Research, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mark OremusDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Paul S NoletDepartment of Graduate Education and Research, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jennifer V NashDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Craig A BaumanDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Carla CiracoChiropractic Department, D'Youville College, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Rachel J CoubanMichael G. DeGroote National Pain Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jason W BusseDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods.

objectiveTo quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality.

methodsWe will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality. DISCUSSION: This will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.

Indexed as

ChiropracticBiasHealth Services ResearchHumansReview Literature as TopicChiropracticMethodological reviewMixed methods researchReporting qualityStudy protocol

Identifiers

PMID34526065
PMCPMC8442283

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.