Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review. Academic Article uri icon

  •  
  • Overview
  •  
  • Identity
  •  
  • Additional Document Info
  •  
  • View All
  •  

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.

publication date

  • April 2022