The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation

W. J. Assendelft, B. W. Koes, P. G. Knipschild and L. M. Bouter
Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE--To study the relationship between the methodological quality and other characteristics of reviews of spinal manipulation for low back pain on the one hand and the reviewers' conclusions on the effectiveness of manipulation on the other hand. DATA SOURCES--Reviews identified by MEDLINE search, citation tracking, library search, and correspondence with experts. STUDY SELECTION--English- or Dutch-language reviews published up to 1993 dealing with spinal manipulation for low back pain that include at least two randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA EXTRACTION--Methodological quality was assessed using a standardized criteria list applied independently by two assessors (range, 0% to 100%). Other extracted characteristics were the comprehensiveness of the search, selective citation of studies, language, inclusion of non-RCTs, type of publication, reviewers' professional backgrounds, and publication in a spinal manipulation journal or book. The reviewers' conclusions were classified as negative, neutral, or positive. DATA SYNTHESIS--A total of 51 reviews were assessed, 17 of which were neutral and 34 positive. The methodological quality was low, with a median score of 23%. Nine of the 10 methodologically best reviews were positive. Other factors associated with a positive reviewers' conclusion were review of spinal manipulation only, inclusion of a spinal manipulator in the review team, and a comprehensive literature search. CONCLUSIONS--The majority of the reviews concluded that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for low back pain. Although, in particular, the reviews with a relatively high methodological quality had a positive conclusion, strong conclusions were precluded by the overall low quality of the reviews. More empirical research on the review methods applied to other therapies in other professional fields is needed to further explore our findings about the factors related to a positive reviewers' conclusion.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Need for Quality Improvement in Renal Systematic Reviews
Mrkobrada et al.
CJASN 2008;3:1102-1114.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Using Existing Systematic Reviews in Complex Systematic Reviews
Whitlock et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2008;148:776-782.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: When One Study Is Just not Enough
Garg et al.
CJASN 2008;3:253-260.
FULL TEXT  

Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study
Yank et al.
BMJ 2007;335:1202-1205.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

State of the Evidence on Acute Asthma Management in Children: A Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews
Boluyt et al.
Pediatrics 2007;120:1334-1343.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Review of the Evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline
Chou and Huffman
ANN INTERN MED 2007;147:492-504.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study
Biondi-Zoccai et al.
BMJ 2006;332:202-209.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparative Analysis of Individuals With and Without Chiropractic Coverage: Patient Characteristics, Utilization, and Costs
Legorreta et al.
Arch Intern Med 2004;164:1985-1992.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Low Back Pain
Swenson and Haldeman
J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2003;11:228-237.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness Relative to Other Therapies
Assendelft et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2003;138:871-881.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine
Linde and Willich
JRSM 2003;96:17-22.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Chiropractic Health Care in Health Professional Shortage Areas in the United States
Smith and Carber
Am. J. Public Health 2002;92:2001-2009.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Correlation of Quality Measures With Estimates of Treatment Effect in Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials
Balk et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2973-2982.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Comparison of the Quality of Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews Published in Paper-Based Journals
Shea et al.
Eval Health Prof 2002;25:116-129.
ABSTRACT  

Chiropractic: A Profession at the Crossroads of Mainstream and Alternative Medicine
Meeker and Haldeman
ANN INTERN MED 2002;136:216-227.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-Based Guidelines: Application to Clinical Practice
Scalzitti
ptjournal 2001;81:1622-1628.
FULL TEXT  

Components of Effective Youth Violence Prevention Programs for 7- to 14-Year-Olds
Cooper et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000;154:1134-1139.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation
Jadad et al.
BMJ 2000;320:537-540.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Chiropractic for low back pain
Ernst and Assendelft
BMJ 1998;317:160-160.
FULL TEXT  

Methodology and Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: A Comparison of Cochrane Reviews With Articles Published in Paper-Based Journals
Jadad et al.
JAMA 1998;280:278-280.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Guides for Reading and Interpreting Systematic Reviews: I. Getting Started
Klassen et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998;152:700-704.
FULL TEXT  

Why Review Articles on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking Reach Different Conclusions
Barnes and Bero
JAMA 1998;279:1566-1570.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability
Savulescu et al.
BMJ 1996;313:1390-1393.
FULL TEXT