Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: a blinded review.

Open access
Koes, B W, Assendelft, W J, van der Heijden, G J, Bouter, L M, Knipschild, P G·1991·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of spinal manipulation for patients with back or neck pain. DESIGN: Computer aided search for published papers and blinded assessment of the methods of the studies. SUBJECTS: 35 randomised clinical trials comparing spinal manipulation with other treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Score for quality of methods (based on four main categories: study population, interventions, measurement of effect, and data presentation and analysis) and main conclusion of author(s) with regard to spinal manipulation. RESULTS: No trial scored 60 or more points (maximum score 100) suggesting that most were of poor quality. Eighteen studies (51%) showed favourable results for manipulation. In addition, five studies (14%) reported positive results in one or more subgroups. Of the four studies with 50-60 points, one reported that manipulation was better, two reported that manipulation was better in only a subgroup, and one reported that manipulation was no better or worse than reference treatment. Eight trials attempted to compare manipulation with some placebo, with inconsistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Although some results are promising, the efficacy of manipulation has not been convincingly shown. Further trials are needed, but much more attention should be paid to the methods of study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.303.6813.1298

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Koes, B. W., Assendelft, W. J., van der Heijden, G. J., Bouter, L. M., & Knipschild, P. G.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1991-11-23
Volume
303
Issue
6813
Pages
1298-1303
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2062310951
Cited by
270
References
2
FWCI
8.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.