Quality of Reporting Using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study Criteria in Chiropractic Mixed Methods Research: A Methodological Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to examine the reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) criteria. METHODS: In this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from the inception of each database to December 31, 2020, for chiropractic studies reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods or mixed qualitative methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text studies, extracted data, and appraised reporting using the GRAMMS criteria and risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Generalized estimating equations were used to explore factors associated with reporting using GRAMMS criteria. RESULTS: Of 1040 citations, 55 studies were eligible for review. Thirty-seven of these 55 articles employed either a multistage or convergent mixed methods design, and, on average, 3 of 6 GRAMMS items were reported among included studies. We found a strong positive correlation in scores between the GRAMMS and MMAT instruments (r = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). In our adjusted analysis, publications in journals indexed in Web of Science (adjusted odds ratio = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.48-4.95) were associated with higher reporting using GRAMMS criteria. Three of the 55 studies fully adhered to all 6 GRAMMS criteria, 4 studies adhered to 5 criteria, 10 studies adhered to 4 criteria, and the remaining 38 adhered to 3 criteria or fewer. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using GRAMMS criteria was poor, particularly among studies with a higher risk of bias.

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

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.

Objectif: examiner le risque de biais dans la recherche sur les méthodes mixtes chiropratiques. Méthodologie: nous avons effectué une analyse secondaire d'un examen méta-épidémiologique d'études de méthodes mixtes chiropratiques. Nous avons examiné le risque de biais avec The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, MMAT (l'outil d'évaluation des méthodes mixtes), et utilisé des équations d'estimation généralisées pour explorer les facteurs associés au risque de biais. Résultats: parmi 55 études admissibles, une moyenne de 62 % (6,8 [2,3]/11) des items du MMAT ont été remplis. Dans notre analyse ajustée, les études publiées depuis 2010 versus celles d'avant 2010 (rapport de cotes [aOR] ajusté = 2,26; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 1,39 à 3,68), et celles publiées dans des revues avec un indice de citations versus aucun indice de citations (aOR = 2,21; IC à 95 %, 1,33 à 3,68) étaient associées à un risque de biais plus faible. Conclusion: nos résultats suggèrent des opportunités d'amélioration de la qualité de la conduite parmi les études publiées sur les méthodes mixtes chiropratiques. La conformité des auteurs aux critères MMAT peut réduire les biais méthodologiques dans les futures recherches sur les méthodes mixtes.

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

BACKGROUND: Mixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality. DISCUSSION: This will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

UPDATES: This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation­risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

Human and Bovine Colostrum for Prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Human and bovine colostrum (HBC) administration has been linked to beneficial effects on morbidity and mortality associated with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of HBC for reducing NEC, mortality, sepsis, time to full-feed and feeding intolerance in preterm infants. DATA SOURCES: We conducted searches through Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing human or bovine colostrum to placebo. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently did screening, review, and extraction. RESULTS: Eight studies (385 infants) proved eligible. In comparison with placebo, HBC revealed no effect on the incidence of severe NEC (relative risk [RR]: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48 to 2.02, I2 = 2.2%; moderate certainty of evidence), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.88; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.82, I2 = 0%; moderate certainty), culture-proven sepsis (RR: 0.78; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.14, I2 = 0%; moderate certainty), and feed intolerance (RR: 0.97; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.56, I2 = 55%; low certainty). HBC revealed a significant effect on reducing the mean days to reach full enteral feed (mean difference: -3.55; 95% CI 0.33 to 6.77, I2 = 41.1%; moderate certainty). The indirect comparison of bovine versus human colostrum revealed no difference in any outcome. LIMITATIONS: The number of patients was modest, whereas the number of NEC-related events was low. CONCLUSIONS: Bovine or human colostrum has no effect on severe NEC, mortality, culture-proven sepsis, feed intolerance, or length of stay. Additional research focused on the impact on enteral feeding may be needed to confirm the findings on this outcome.

Management of Central Poststroke Pain: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Central poststroke pain is a chronic neuropathic disorder that follows a stroke. Current research on its management is limited, and no review has evaluated all therapies for central poststroke pain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate therapies for central poststroke pain. We identified eligible trials, in any language, by systematic searches of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO. Eligible trials (1) enrolled ≥10 patients with central poststroke pain; (2) randomly assigned them to an active therapy or a control arm; and (3) collected outcome data≥14 days after treatment. Pairs of reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts of identified citations, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible trials, and extracted information from eligible studies. We used a modified Cochrane tool to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, and collected patient-important outcomes according to recommendations by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. We conducted, when possible, random effects meta-analyses, and evaluated our certainty in treatment effects using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System. RESULTS: Eight eligible English language randomized controlled trials (459 patients) tested anticonvulsants, an antidepressant, an opioid antagonist, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and acupuncture. Results suggested that all therapies had little to no effect on pain and other patient-important outcomes. Our certainty in the treatment estimates ranged from very low to low. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are inconsistent with major clinical practice guidelines; the available evidence suggests no beneficial effects of any therapies that researchers have evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

Association of worker characteristics and early reimbursement for physical therapy, chiropractic and opioid prescriptions with workers' compensation claim duration, for cases of acute low back pain: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between early reimbursement for physiotherapy, chiropractic and opioid prescriptions for acute low back pain (LBP) with disability claim duration. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: From a random sample of 6665 claims for acute, uncomplicated LBP approved by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) in 2005, we analysed 1442 who remained on full benefits at 4 weeks after claim approval. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Our primary outcome was WSIB claim duration. RESULTS: We had complete data for all but 3 variables, which had <15% missing data, and we included missing data as a category for these factors. Our time-to-event analysis was adjusted for demographic, workplace and treatment factors, but not injury severity, although we attempted to include a sample with very similar, less-severe injuries. Regarding significant factors and treatment variables in our adjusted analysis, older age (eg, HR for age ≥ 55 vs <25=0.52; 99% CI 0.36 to 0.74) and WSIB reimbursement for opioid prescription in the first 4 weeks of a claim (HR=0.68; 99% CI 0.53 to 0.88) were associated with longer claim duration. Higher predisability income was associated with longer claim duration, but only among persistent claims (eg, HR for active claims at 1 year with a predisability income >$920 vs ≤$480/week=0.34; 99% CI 0.17 to 0.68). Missing data for union membership (HR=1.27; 99% CI 1.01 to 1.59), and working for an employer with a return-to-work programme were associated with fewer days on claim (HR=1.78; 99% CI 1.45 to 2.18). Neither reimbursement for physiotherapy (HR=1.01; 99% CI 0.86 to 1.19) nor chiropractic care (HR for active claims at 60 days=1.15; 99% CI 0.94 to 1.41) within the first 4 weeks was associated with claim duration. Our meta-analysis of 3 studies (n=51,069 workers) confirmed a strong association between early opioid use and prolonged claim duration (HR=0.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.69; low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found that early WSIB reimbursement for physiotherapy or chiropractic care, in claimants fully off work for more than 4 weeks, was not associated with claim duration, and that early reimbursement for opioids predicted prolonged claim duration. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to verify our findings and establish causality between these variables and claim duration.

Hypnosis/Relaxation therapy for temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of hypnosis/relaxation therapy compared to no/minimal treatment in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). METHODS: Studies reviewed included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where investigators randomized patients with TMD or an equivalent condition to an intervention arm receiving hypnosis, relaxation training, or hyporelaxation therapy, and a control group receiving no/minimal treatment. The systematic search was conducted without language restrictions, in Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO, from inception to June 30, 2014. Studies were pooled using weighted mean differences and pooled risk ratios (RRs) for continuous outcomes and dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of 3,098 identified citations, 3 studies including 159 patients proved eligible, although none of these described their method of randomization. The results suggested limited or no benefit of hypnosis/relaxation therapy on pain (risk difference in important pain -0.06; 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.05; P = .28), or on pressure pain thresholds on the skin surface over the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and masticatory muscles. Low-quality evidence suggested some benefit of hypnosis/relaxation therapy on maximal pain (mean difference on 100-mm scale = -28.33; 95% CI: -44.67 to -11.99; P =.007) and active maximal mouth opening (mean difference on 100-mm scale = -2.63 mm; 95% CI: -3.30 mm to -1.96 mm; P < .001) compared to no/minimal treatment. CONCLUSION: Three RCTs were eligible for the systematic review, but they were with high risk of bias and provided low-quality evidence, suggesting that hypnosis/relaxation therapy may have a beneficial effect on maximal pain and active maximal mouth opening but not on pain and pressure pain threshold. Larger RCTs with low risk of bias are required to confirm or refute these findings and to inform other important patient outcomes.