Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review

Peter C Emary; Kent J Stuber; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Mark Oremus; Paul S Nolet; Jennifer V Nash; Craig A Bauman; Carla Ciraco; Rachel J Couban; Jason W Busse

Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review

Peter C Emary^*, Kent J Stuber, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Mark Oremus, Paul S Nolet, Jennifer V Nash, Craig A Bauman, Carla Ciraco, Rachel J Couban, Jason W Busse

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	7-20
Number of pages	14
Journal	Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association
Volume	66
Issue number	1
Publication status	Published - Apr 2022

Access to Document

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9103633/pdf/jcca-66-7.pdf

Cite this

Emary, P. C., Stuber, K. J., Mbuagbaw, L., Oremus, M., Nolet, P. S., Nash, J. V., Bauman, C. A., Ciraco, C., Couban, R. J., & Busse, J. W. (2022). Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review. Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 66(1), 7-20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9103633/pdf/jcca-66-7.pdf

@article{86d6503527e54d05a2fd8d1f960e8932,

title = "Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review",

abstract = "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.",

author = "Emary, {Peter C} and Stuber, {Kent J} and Lawrence Mbuagbaw and Mark Oremus and Nolet, {Paul S} and Nash, {Jennifer V} and Bauman, {Craig A} and Carla Ciraco and Couban, {Rachel J} and Busse, {Jason W}",

note = "{\textcopyright} JCCA 2022.",

year = "2022",

month = apr,

language = "English",

volume = "66",

pages = "7--20",

journal = "Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association",

issn = "0008-3194",

publisher = "Canadian Chiropractic Association",

number = "1",

}

Emary, PC, Stuber, KJ, Mbuagbaw, L, Oremus, M, Nolet, PS, Nash, JV, Bauman, CA, Ciraco, C, Couban, RJ & Busse, JW 2022, 'Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review', Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 7-20. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9103633/pdf/jcca-66-7.pdf>

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research

T2 - a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review

AU - Emary, Peter C

AU - Stuber, Kent J

AU - Mbuagbaw, Lawrence

AU - Oremus, Mark

AU - Nolet, Paul S

AU - Nash, Jennifer V

AU - Bauman, Craig A

AU - Ciraco, Carla

AU - Couban, Rachel J

AU - Busse, Jason W

PY - 2022/4

Y1 - 2022/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

M3 - Article

C2 - 35655699

SN - 0008-3194

VL - 66

SP - 7

EP - 20

JO - Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association

JF - Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association

IS - 1

ER -