Logo of chimantherBioMed CentralBiomed Central Web Sitesearchsubmit a manuscriptregisterthis articleChiropractic & Manual TherapiesJournal Front Page
PMC full text:
Copyright/License ►Request permission to reuse

Table 1

Return to:   Primary Prevention in Chiropractic Practice: A Systematic Review

The representativeness of twenty-six studies on the use of primary prevention in chiropractic practice

Articles
1st author
Yr of publication
Country of study		Study design in relation to our objectives
i) data collected by DC
ii) data collected by patients/
guardians		Target population defined
(1 pt)
i) DC
ii) patients/guardians
Group(s) who provided the data were written in bold 		Study sample (s) described
(at least age, sex, geographic distribution, or professional background)
(1 pt)
i) DC
ii) patients/guardians		Sampling method
-whole target population (1 pt)
-random selection (1 pt)
-consecutive sample (1 pt)
-convenience sample (0 pt)
i) DC
ii) patients/guardians		Response rate provided or possible to calculate and if provided > 10% (1 pt)
i) DC
ii) patients/guardians		If less than 80% response, was there a resp/non-resp comparison?
(1 pt)
i) DC
ii) patients/guardians		Scores
Walker (2000) [33]
USA		i) DC report on their use of PP
ii)/		i) American DC
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Random selection
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 24%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) IR		4/5
Hawk (2001) [22]
Australia
Canada
USA		i) DC report their use of PP and recruited patients to participate in survey
ii) Patients report on RfC		i) DC in practice-based research network
(1 pt)
ii) DC’s patients
(1 pt)		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) Yes
(1 pt)		i) Convenience sample
(0 pt)
ii) Consecutive sampling
(1 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) In a subsample response rate was estimated to be between 40 and 95%
(1 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		6/10
Hawk (2004) [17]
USA		i) DC report on their use of PP and opinions on PP
ii)/		i) American DC
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Random selection
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 27%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) IR		4/5
McDonald (2004) [34]
Mexico
USA
Canada		i) DC report on their opinions on PP
ii)/		i) DC from mainly North America
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Random selection
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 63%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		5/5
Mootz (2005) [38]
USA		i) DC collected data on their patients' RfC
ii)/		i) American DC from Arizona and Massachusetts
(1 pt)
ii) DC's patients
(1 pt)		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) Yes
(1 pt)		i) Random selection
(1 pt)
ii) Consecutive sampling
(1 pt)		i) 68% (Arizona)
76% (Massachusetts)
(1 pt)
ii) 58% (Arizona)
67% (Massachusetts)
(1 pt)		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) Yes
(1 pt)		10/10
Alcantara (2008) [23]
Several countries		i) DC collected data on their patients' RfC and recruited patients to participate in survey
ii) Patients report on RfC		i) DC in practice-based pediatric research network
(1 pt)
ii) Parents of DC's patients
(1 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) Yes
(1 pt)		i) Convenience sample
(0 pt)
ii) Not reported
(0 pt)		i) 2%
(0 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		3/10
Blum (2008) [18]
Australia
Europe
USA		i) DC recruited patients to participate in survey
ii) Patients report on RfC		i) DC specialized in SOT and known to use wellness
(1 pt)
ii) DC's patients
(1 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) Yes
(1 pt)		i) Convenience sample
(0 pt)
ii) Consecutive sample
(1 pt)		i) 100%
(1 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		i) NA because >80%
(1 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		6/10
Malmqvist (2008) [35]
Finland		i) DC report on their use of PP ii)/i) DC from Finland
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Whole population
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 88%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) NA because >80%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		5/5
Alcantara (2009) [24]
Several countries		i) DC report on patients’ RfC
ii) Patients report on RfC		i) DC in practice-based pediatric research invited the patients and were also surveyed
(1 pt)
ii) Parents of DC's patients (1 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) Yes
(1 pt)		i) Convenience sample
(0 pt)
ii) Not reported
(0 pt)		i) 1%
(0 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		3/10
Hestbaek (2009) [37]
Denmark		i) DC recruited patients to participate in survey
ii) Patients report on RfC		i) Danish DC treating pediatric patients
(1 pt)
ii) Pediatric patients after their 1st visit
(1 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) Yes
(1 pt)		i) Whole population
(1 pt)
ii) Consecutive sample of new patients
(1 pt)		i) 84%
(1 pt)
ii) No
probably > 50%
(0 pt)		i) NA because >80%
(1 pt)
ii) Yes?
(1 pt)		8/10
Alcantara (2010) [25]
Several countries		i) DC report on their use of PP and patients’ RfC
ii)/		i) DC in practice-based pediatric research network
(1 pt)
ii) Pediatric patients
(1 pt)		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		i) Convenience sample
(0 pt)
ii) Not reported
(0 pt)		i) 37%
(1 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		4/10
Leach (2011) [28]
USA		i) DC report on their opinions on PP and use of PP ii)/i) DC in state of Mississippi
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Whole population
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 43%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) IR		4/5
Marchand (2012) [26]
Several
European countries		i) DC report on their use of PP and collect data on their patients' RfC
ii)/		i) DC from several European countries
(1 pt)
ii) DC's patients
(1 pt)		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		i) Whole population
(1 pt)
ii) Not reported
(0 pt)		i) 23%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) IR		5/8
French (2013) [39]
Australia		i) DC collect data on their patients' RfC
ii)/		i) Australian DC
(1 pt)
ii) Patients from these DC
(1 pt)		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) Yes
(1 pt)		i) Random selection
(1 pt)
ii) Consecutive sample
(1 pt)		i) 33%
(1 pt)
ii) 86%
(1 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) NA because >80%
(1 pt)		9/10
Stuber (2013) [19]
Canada		i) DC report on their use of PP
ii)/		i) DC from the province of Saskatchewan
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Whole population
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 45%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		5/5
Brown (2014) [40]
Australia		i) DC recruit patients to participate in survey
ii) Patients report on their opinions on PP		i) Australian chiropractic clinics
(1 pt)
ii) Adult patients from these clinics
(1 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) Yes
(1 pt)		i) Random selection
(1 pt)
ii) Consecutive sample
(1 pt)		i) 96%
(1 pt)
ii) 24%
(1 pt)		i) NA because >80%
(1 pt)
ii) No
(1 pt)		9/10
McGregor (2014) [20]
Canada		i) DC report on their opinions on PP
ii)/		i) English speaking Canadian DC
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Random selection
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 68%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) IR		4/5
Bussières (2015) [27]
Canada		i) DC report on their opinions on PP
ii)/		i) Canadian DC with a valid email address
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Convenience sample
(0 pt)
ii) IR		i) 8%
(0 pt)
ii) IR		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) IR		2/5
Blanchette (2015) [36]
Canada		i) DC report on their opinions on PP
ii)/		i) Canadian DC
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Whole population
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 39%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		5/5
Fikar (2015) [31]
UK		i) DC report on their opinions on PP and use of PP
ii)/		i) English DC
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 4 Whole populations
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 21%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) IR		4/5
Glithro (2015) [29]
UK		i) DC report on their opinions on PP and use of PP
ii)/		i) English DC
including some students
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Random selection
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 30%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) IR		4/5
Schneider (2015) [30]
USA		i) DC report on their opinions on PP
ii)/		i) American DC
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Convenience sample
(0 pt)
ii) IR		i) maximum 4%
(0 pt)
ii) IR		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) IR		2/5
Allen- Unhammer (2016) [21]
Norway
(Part1 – register study)		i) DC report on their patients’ RfC in NHS database
ii)/		i) Norwegian DC
(1 pt)
ii) Paediatric patients from these DC
(1 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) Yes
(1 pt)		i) Whole target population
(1 pt)
ii) Whole target population
(1 pt)		i) NA (register data)
Probably 100%
(1 pt)
ii) NA (register data)
Probably 100%
(1 pt)		i) NA because >80%
(1 pt)
i) NA because >80%
(1 pt)		9/10
Allen- Unhammer (2016) [21]
Norway
(Part 2 – survey)		i) DC recruit paediatric patients
ii) patients/parents report on RfC		i) Norwegian DC
(1 pt)
ii) Paediatric patients from these DC
(1 pt)		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) Yes
(1 pt)		i) Whole target population
(1 pt)
ii) Convenience sample from small group of participating DC
(0 pt)		i) 15%
(1 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) No
(0 pt)		6/10
Pohlman (2016) [41]
Several Countries		i) DC report on their patients’ RfC
ii)/		i) DC
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 3 whole populations
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 29%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		5/5
Adams (2017) [32]
Australia		i) DC report on their use of PP
ii)/		i) Australian DC
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) yes
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) Whole target population
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) 43%
(1 pt)
ii) IR		i) No
(0 pt)
ii) IR		4/5
PP = Primary Prevention
DC = chiropractors
IR = irrelevant
NA = Not Applicable
RfC = Reason for Consulting
NHS = National Health Service