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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Outcomes indicators and a risk classification system for spinal manipulation under anesthesia: a narrative review and proposal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12998-018-0177-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dennis DiGiorgi, John L. Cerf, Daniel S. Bowerman |
| Abstract |
Over a period of decades chiropractors have utilized spinal manipulation under anesthesia (SMUA) to treat chronic back and neck pain. As an advanced form of manual therapy, SMUA is reserved for the patient whose condition has proven refractory to office-based manipulation and other modes of conservative care. Historically, the protocols and guidelines put forth by chiropractic MUA proponents have served as the clinical compass for directing MUA practice. With many authors and MUA advocates having focused primarily on anticipated benefit, the published literature contains no resource dedicated to treatment precautions and contraindications. Also absent from current relevant literature is acknowledgement or guidance on the preliminary evidence that may predict poor clinical outcomes with SMUA. This review considers risk and unfavorable outcomes indicators in therapeutic decision making for spinal manipulation under anesthesia. A new risk classification system is proposed that identifies patient safety and quality of care interests for a procedure that remains without higher-level research evidence. A scale which categorizes risk and outcome potential for SMUA is offered for the chiropractic clinician, which aims to elevate the standard of care and improve patient selection through the incorporation of specific indices from existing medical literature. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 23% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 17 | 28% |