Warning: Undefined array key "mm" in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review.

Literature DB >> 35655699

Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review.

Peter C Emary^1,2,3, Kent J Stuber⁴, Lawrence Mbuagbaw^1,5,6,7, Mark Oremus^1,8, Paul S Nolet^4,9, Jennifer V Nash¹⁰, Craig A Bauman^11,12, Carla Ciraco², Rachel J Couban¹³, Jason W Busse^1,10,13,14.

Abstract

Objective: To examine the risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research.
Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review of chiropractic mixed methods studies. We assessed risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and used generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with risk of bias.
Results: Among 55 eligible studies, a mean of 62% (6.8 [2.3]/11) of MMAT items were fulfilled. In our adjusted analysis, studies published since 2010 versus pre-2010 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 3.68) and those published in journals with an impact factor versus no impact factor (aOR = 2.21; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.68) were associated with lower risk of bias.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest opportunities for improvement in the quality of conduct among published chiropractic mixed methods studies. Author compliance with the MMAT criteria may reduce methodological bias in future mixed methods research. © JCCA 2022.

Entities: Chemical

Keywords: chiropractic; methodological review; mixed methods research; risk of bias

Year: 2022 PMID： 35655699 PMCID： PMC9103633

Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Can Chiropr Assoc ISSN： 0008-3194

Keyword Cloud
References

18 in total

1. Multivariable analysis: a primer for readers of medical research.

Authors: Mitchell H Katz
Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-04-15 Impact factor: 25.391

2. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods.

Authors: P J Devereaux; Peter T-L Choi; Samer El-Dika; Mohit Bhandari; Victor M Montori; Holger J Schünemann; Amit X Garg; Jason W Busse; Diane Heels-Ansdell; William A Ghali; Braden J Manns; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 6.437

3. "I know it's changed": a mixed-methods study of the meaning of Global Perceived Effect in chronic neck pain patients.

Authors: Roni Evans; Gert Bronfort; Michele Maiers; Craig Schulz; Jan Hartvigsen
Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 3.134

4. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review.

Authors: Romina Pace; Pierre Pluye; Gillian Bartlett; Ann C Macaulay; Jon Salsberg; Justin Jagosh; Robbyn Seller
Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 5.837

Review 9. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study.

Authors: Simon Lewin; Claire Glenton; Andrew D Oxman
Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-09-10

Review 10. A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why.

Authors: Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Daeria O Lawson; Livia Puljak; David B Allison; Lehana Thabane
Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 4.615

Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review.

1. Multivariable analysis: a primer for readers of medical research.

2. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods.

3. "I know it's changed": a mixed-methods study of the meaning of Global Perceived Effect in chronic neck pain patients.

4. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review.

5. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Review 6. Mixed Methods in CAM Research: A Systematic Review of Studies Published in 2012.

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

Review 8. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions.

Review 9. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study.

Review 10. A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why.