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.

Surgeon attitudes toward nonphysician screening of low back or low back-related leg pain patients referred for surgical assessment: a survey of Canadian spine surgeons.

STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire survey. OBJECTIVE: To explore spine surgeons' attitudes toward the involvement of nonphysician clinicians (NPCs) to screen patients with low back or low back-related leg pain referred for surgical assessment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the utilization of physician assistants is common in several healthcare systems, the attitude of spine surgeons toward the independent assessment of patients by NPCs remains uncertain. METHODS: We administered a 28-item survey to all 101 surgeon members of the Canadian Spine Society, which inquired about demographic variables, patient screening efficiency, typical wait times for both assessment and surgery, important components of low back-related complaints history and examination, indicators for assessment by a surgeon, and attitudes toward the use of NPCs to screen patients with low back and leg pain referred for elective surgical assessment. RESULTS: Eighty-five spine surgeons completed our survey, for a response rate of 84.1%. Most respondents (77.6%) were interested in working with an NPC to screen patients with low back-related complaints referred for elective surgical assessment. Perception of suboptimal wait time for consultation and poor screening efficiency for surgical candidates were associated with greater surgeon interest in an NPC model of care. We achieved majority consensus regarding the core components for a low back-related complaints history and examination, and findings that would support surgical assessment. A majority of respondents (75.3%) agreed that they would be comfortable not assessing patients with low back-related complaints referred to their practice if indications for surgery were ruled out by an NPC. CONCLUSION: The majority of Canadian spine surgeons were open to an NPC model of care to assess and triage nonurgent or emergent low back-related complaints. Clinical trials to establish the effectiveness and acceptance of an NPC model of care by all stakeholders are urgently needed.