↓ Skip to main content

A replication of the study ‘Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review’

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
A replication of the study ‘Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review’
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/2045-709x-20-30
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Tuchin

Abstract

To assess the significance of adverse events after spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) by replicating and critically reviewing a paper commonly cited when reviewing adverse events of SMT as reported by Ernst (J Roy Soc Med 100:330-338, 2007). Replication of a 2007 Ernst paper to compare the details recorded in this paper to the original source material. Specific items that were assessed included the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and the recording of other significant risk factors such as diabetes, hyperhomocysteinemia, use of oral contraceptive pill, any history of hypertension, atherosclerosis and migraine. The review of the 32 papers discussed by Ernst found numerous errors or inconsistencies from the original case reports and case series. These errors included alteration of the age or sex of the patient, and omission or misrepresentation of the long term response of the patient to the adverse event. Other errors included incorrectly assigning spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) as chiropractic treatment when it had been reported in the original paper as delivered by a non-chiropractic provider (e.g. Physician).The original case reports often omitted to record the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and other significant clinical or risk factors. The country of origin of the original paper was also overlooked, which is significant as chiropractic is not legislated in many countries. In 21 of the cases reported by Ernst to be chiropractic treatment, 11 were from countries where chiropractic is not legislated. The number of errors or omissions in the 2007 Ernst paper, reduce the validity of the study and the reported conclusions. The omissions of potential risk factors and the timeline between the adverse event and SMT could be significant confounding factors. Greater care is also needed to distinguish between chiropractors and other health practitioners when reviewing the application of SMT and related adverse effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 22%
Other 11 12%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Lecturer 6 6%
Other 24 26%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Physics and Astronomy 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 15 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,040,286
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#7
of 7 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,002
of 190,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 190,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them