Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jun 9:24:19.
doi: 10.1186/s12998-016-0099-6. eCollection 2016.

Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in chiropractic using the CONSORT checklist

Fay Karpouzis  1 , Rod Bonello  2 , Mario Pribicevic  3 , Allan Kalamir  3 , Benjamin T Brown  3
Affiliations

Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in chiropractic using the CONSORT checklist

Fay Karpouzis et al. Chiropr Man Therap. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: Reviews indicate that the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the medical literature is less than optimal, poor to moderate, and require improving. However, the reporting quality of chiropractic RCTs is unknown. As a result, the aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of chiropractic RCTs and identify factors associated with better reporting quality. We hypothesized that quality of reporting of RCTs was influenced by industry funding, positive findings, larger sample sizes, latter year of publication and publication in non-chiropractic journals.

Methods: RCTs published between 2005 and 2014 were sourced from clinical trial registers, PubMed and the Cochrane Reviews. RCTs were included if they involved high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) spinal and/or extremity manipulation and were conducted by a chiropractor or within a chiropractic department. Data extraction, and reviews were conducted by all authors independently. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Outcomes: a 39-point overall quality of reporting score checklist was developed based on the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT for Non-Pharmacological Treatments statements. Four key methodological items, based on allocation concealment, blinding of participants and assessors, and use of intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) were also investigated.

Results: Thirty-five RCTs were included. The overall quality of reporting score ranged between 10 and 33 (median score 26.0; IQR = 8.00). Allocation concealment, blinding of participants and assessors and ITT analysis were reported in 31 (87 %), 16 (46 %), 25 (71 %) and 21 (60 %) of the 35 RCTs respectively. Items most underreported were from the CONSORT for Non-Pharmacological Treatments statement. Multivariate regression analysis, revealed that year of publication (t32 = 5.17, p = 0.000, 95 % CI: 0.76, 1.76), and sample size (t32 = 3.01, p = 0.005, 95 % CI: 1.36, 7.02), were the only two factors associated with reporting quality.

Conclusion: The overall quality of reporting RCTs in chiropractic ranged from poor to excellent, improving between 2005 and 2014. This study suggests that quality of reporting, was influenced by year of publication and sample size but not journal type, funding source or outcome positivity. Reporting of some key methodological items and uptake of items from the CONSORT Extension for Non-Pharmacological Treatments items was suboptimal. Future recommendations were made.

Keywords: Chiropractic manipulation; Manipulation; Musculoskeletal; Quality of reporting; Randomised controlled trials; Spinal manipulative therapy; Spine; The CONSORT statement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of RCT selection (N = 35)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Scatterplot of the correlation between the Overall Quality of Reporting Score and Year of Publication(N = 35)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Boxplot of the distribution of Overall Quality of Reporting Scores for Chiropractic vs Non-Chiropractic Journals (N = 35)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Boxplot of the distribution of Overall Quality of Reporting Scores for Sample Size 1–100 vs >100 (N = 35)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Boxplot of the distribution of Overall Quality of Reporting Scores for Year of Publication by group, 2005–2007 vs 2008–2014 (N = 35)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Cartwright N. Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties. 2007;2:11–20. doi: 10.1017/S1745855207005029. - DOI
    1. Rothwell P. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results apply?”. Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82–93. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Keech A, Gebski V, Pike R. Interpreting and reporting clinical trials. A guide to the CONSORT statement and the principles of randomised controlled trials. Sydney: MJA Books, Australasian Medical Publishing Company; 2007.
    1. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, for the CONSORT Group Use of the CONSORT Statement and quality of reports of randomised trials: A comparative before-and after-evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285(15):1992–1995. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.15.1992. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Altman D, Schulz K, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche P, Lang T, for the CONSORT Group The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(8):663–694. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources