Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41248105›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Defining and classifying adverse events following joint manipulation and mobilization: An international e-Delphi study and focus groups.

Martha Funabashi, Lindsay M Gorrell, Katherine A Pohlman, Andrea Bergna, Nicola R Heneghan, AdEMMo Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
–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

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

  1. Adverse events following cervical spine self-manipulation: A systematic review.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  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

6 authors.

Martha FunabashiDivision of Research and Innovation, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0292-8668
Lindsay M GorrellIntegrative Spinal Research Group, Department of Chiropractic Medicine, University Hospital Balgrist, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1937-741X
Katherine A PohlmanResearch Center, Parker University, Dallas, Texas, United States of America.
Andrea BergnaResearch Department, SOMA Istituto Osteopatia Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2526-9642
Nicola R HeneghanSchool of Sport, Exercise & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7599-3674
AdEMMo Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation (MAN) and mobilization (MOB) are widely used for managing musculoskeletal conditions. Although adverse events (AE) have been reported following these interventions, there is no universally accepted definition and classification system. This study aimed to establish an inter-professional and international standardized definition and severity classification for AE following MAN and MOB. This sequential mixed-methods study included an electronic Delphi process (e-Delphi) followed by focus groups. Inter-professional and international expert stakeholders participated in 3 e-Delphi rounds: Round 1 included open-ended questions on participants' working AE definition and severity classification; Round 2, level of agreement with statements generated from Round 1 and a previous scoping review; and Round 3, level of agreement with statements achieving consensus in Round 2. Focus groups explored e-Delphi findings. Consensus was reached for severity categories (i.e., mild, moderate, severe and catastrophic) and on 2 domains to differentiate these categories (i.e., symptom intensity and impact on patient). Consensus was not reached for a standardized AE definition following MAN and MOB. Focus group discussions centered on "unfavourable", "unexpected" and "undesired" terms and differences between "serious" and "catastrophic" severity classification categories. Findings contribute to advancing patient safety and AE knowledge across professions and informing further safety research and practice.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal DiseasesAdultConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID41248105
PMCPMC12622795

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.