↓ Skip to main content

Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/2045-709x-21-36
Pubmed ID
Authors

John J Triano, Brian Budgell, Angela Bagnulo, Benjamin Roffey, Thomas Bergmann, Robert Cooperstein, Brian Gleberzon, Christopher Good, Jacquelyn Perron, Rodger Tepe

Abstract

With the development of increasing evidence for the use of manipulation in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, there is growing interest in identifying the appropriate indications for care. Recently, attempts have been made to develop clinical prediction rules, however the validity of these clinical prediction rules remains unclear and their impact on care delivery has yet to be established. The current study was designed to evaluate the literature on the validity and reliability of the more common methods used by doctors of chiropractic to inform the choice of the site at which to apply spinal manipulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 205 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 29 14%
Other 28 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 12%
Researcher 21 10%
Other 50 23%
Unknown 29 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 15%
Neuroscience 12 6%
Sports and Recreations 8 4%
Engineering 8 4%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 37 17%