Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38070150›Full record

SynthesisThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2024

Psychometric properties of clinician-reported and performance-based outcomes cited in a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations with diverse medical conditions: a systematic review.

Tricia Hayton, Anita Gross, Annalie Basson, Ken Olson, Oliver Ang, Nikki Milne, Jan Pool

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Tricia HaytonSchool of Rehabilitation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1607-4322
Anita GrossSchool of Rehabilitation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5187-7484
Annalie BassonFaculty of Health Sciences, Physiotherapy Department, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Ken OlsonInternational Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapist, USA.
Oliver AngIntegrative Health and Wellbeing Research Program, Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality and Healing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Nikki MilneDoctor of Physiotherapy Program, Bond University, Queensland, Australia.
Jan PoolInstitute of Human Movement Studies, University of Applied Sciences, Utretcht, The Netherlands.
McMaster University · CABond University · AUUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRisks and benefits of spinal manipulations and mobilization in pediatric populations are a concern to the public, policymakers, and international physiotherapy governing organizations. Clinical Outcome Assessments (COA) used in the literature on these topics are contentious. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the quality of clinician-reported and performance-based COAs identified by a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations across diverse medical conditions. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: Electronic databases, clinicaltrials.gov and Ebsco Open Dissertations were searched up to 21 October 2022. Qualitative synthesis was performed using Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to select studies, perform data extraction, and assess risk of bias. Data synthesis used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) to determine the certainty of the evidence and overall rating: sufficient (+), insufficient (-), inconsistent (±), or indeterminate (?).

resultsFour of 17 identified COAs (77 studies, 9653 participants) with supporting psychometric research were classified as:Performance-based outcome measures: AIMS - Alberta Infant Motor Scale (

conclusionThe AIMS and LATCH had sufficient evidence to evaluate the efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for certain pediatric medical conditions. Further validation studies are needed for other COAs.

Indexed as

Manipulation, SpinalPsychometricsChildHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareScoping Reviews as Topicmanipulationmobilizationoutcome measurespediatricPsychometric properties

Identifiers

PMID38070150
PMCPMC11216262
OpenAlexW4389504904

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.