ArticleBMC health services research2025
A Delphi panel consensus study validating the appropriateness, relevance, and clarity of quality measures for chiropractic care.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing the importance and feasibility of quality measures for chiropractic care: a national survey of U.S. chiropractors.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA set of quality measures for chiropractic care was recently developed from relevant clinical guidelines, best practices, and care standards. This study used consensus methods to further refine the preliminary set as part of a stepwise validation process.
methodsA modified online Delphi consensus study was conducted with chiropractic practitioners and administrators in integrated settings, clinical administrators at Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE)- accredited academic institutions, and CCE-accredited residency program directors. We invited panelists in these roles because integrated care and academic environments frequently assess elements of quality, increasing panelists' familiarity with quality measure concepts. Panelists rated 70 initial measures organized by Donabedian category (structure, process, outcome). Each measure was rated for clarity, relevance for patients, families, clinicians, or health organizations, and appropriateness for evaluating an element related to quality. Consensus was defined as: (1) At least 80% of appropriateness ratings in the 7-9 range; (2) Median appropriateness rating in the 7-9 range; and (3) at least 80% of responses indicating relevance to 1 or more groups. Following the consensus process, authors identified structure and process measures lacking a corresponding measure and developed new measures to fill gaps.
resultsForty-six panelists rated measures across 2 rounds. In Round 1, 51 (73%) measures met consensus. Of those, 14 were revised for clarity, and 3 were divided into 7 separate measures to ensure each measured individual components. Of the 19 (27%) that did not meet consensus, 10 were removed. In Round 2, 1 unrevised and 8 revised measures were re-rated with accompanying text explaining revisions and rationale for including each. Six met consensus. After Round 2, 3 additional measures were developed by authors to ensure process and structure measures were supported by a matching measure, resulting in a final set of 64. Five measures corresponded with the Donabedian category of outcome, 26 process, and 33 structure.
conclusionsThis study established consensus on the clarity, relevance, and appropriateness of a preliminary set of quality measures for chiropractic care. Patient input, pilot testing, and data to inform implementation feasibility and prioritization in different settings are needed to further develop quality measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.