Systematic review of spinal manipulation: A biased report

Ref ID 185
First Author B. J. Lewis
Journal JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE
Year Of Publishing 2006
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16738365/
Keywords • Author
• Allegiance
• Outcomes
• Complementary & Alternative
Problem(s) • Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes
• Non-financial conflicts of interest of review authors
Article Type Editorial
Article Subtype Comment/letter
First Author Country United Kingdom
Aim A letter to the editor highlighting perceived limitations of a systematic overview of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation published in 2006.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings The authors highlight that the outcomes used in the systematic overview of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation published in 2006, are not directly clinically relevant to the condition being treated and that the author of the overview is also the author of many included systematic reviews, which may lead to author bias. The authors question the validity of an overview conducted on systematic reviews of one's own design.
Number of systematic reviews included 1
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 1
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description