| Title |
Well-being outcomes of chiropractic intervention for lower back pain: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-012-2116-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lynne Parkinson, David Sibbritt, Philip Bolton, Joan van Rotterdam, Inger Villadsen |
| Abstract |
The usefulness of chiropractic for treatment of low back pain is a contentious issue. Chiropractors advocate holism and general well-being as a key principle on which they base their clinical practice, yet the quality of life, lifestyle, health and economic impacts of chiropractic intervention for back pain in adults have rarely been investigated. This article provides an overview of chiropractic principles and practices, together with the results of a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications between 2000 and 2010 retrieved from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. This review sought to determine the benefits of chiropractic treatment and care to well-being, and to what extent chiropractic treatment and care improve quality of life. Of 1,165 articles, 12 articles were retained, representing six studies (four randomised controlled trial, two observational) of varying quality. There was a high degree of inconsistency and lack of standardisation in measurement instruments and outcome measures. Three studies reported reduced use of other/extra treatments as a positive outcome; two studies reported a positive effect of chiropractic intervention on pain, and two studies reported a positive effect on disability. The six studies reviewed concentrated on the impact of chiropractic care on physical health and disability, rather than the wider holistic view which was the focus of this study. It is difficult, therefore, to defend any conclusion about the impact of chiropractic intervention on the quality of life, lifestyle, health and economic impact on chiropractic patients presenting with back pain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Researcher | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 23 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 15% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,905,795
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#220
of 2,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,297
of 179,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,981 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 179,003 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.