0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical Practice Guideline for Best Practice Management of Pediatric Patients by Chiropractors: Results of a Delphi Consensus Process

      review-article
      , BAppSc (Chiro), PhD 1 , 2 , , DC, LMT, PhD 3 , 4 , , BAppSc (Chiropractic), MPH 5 , 6 , , , BAPsych, DipEd, BSW, MAASW(Acc), HDR, PGcpl&RelTher, MMH(FamTher) 7 , 8 , , DC 9 , , DC 10 , 11 , , BAppSc (Chiro) 12 , 13 , , DC, MD 14 , , DC, IBCLC 15 , 16 , , DC 17 , , BAppSc (Chiro) 18 , , BAppSc (Chiro) 2 , , DC, PhD 19 , , MTech(Chiro) MBBS MSc DrHC 6 , 20 , , DC 21 , , RN, PhD 22 , , PhD, IBCLC 23 , 24
      Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine
      Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers
      adolescent, chiropractic, child, infant, spine, spinal, manipulation, mobilization, pediatrics

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          To build upon existing recommendations on best practices for chiropractic management of children by conducting a formal consensus process and best evidence synthesis.

          Design:

          Best practice guide based on recommendations from current best available evidence and formal consensus of a panel of experienced practitioners, consumers, and experts for chiropractic management of pediatric patients.

          Methods:

          Synthesis of results of a literature search to inform the development of recommendations from a multidisciplinary steering committee, including experts in pediatrics, followed by a formal Delphi panel consensus process.

          Results:

          The consensus process was conducted June to August 2022. All 60 panelists completed the process and reached at least 80% consensus on all recommendations after three Delphi rounds. Recommendations for best practices for chiropractic care for children addressed these aspects of the clinical encounter: patient communication, including informed consent; appropriate clinical history, including health habits; appropriate physical examination procedures; red flags/contraindications to chiropractic care and/or spinal manipulation; aspects of chiropractic management of pediatric patients, including infants; modifications of spinal manipulation and other manual procedures for pediatric patients; appropriate referral and comanagement; and appropriate health promotion and disease prevention practices.

          Conclusion:

          This set of recommendations represents a general framework for an evidence-informed and reasonable approach to the management of pediatric patients by chiropractors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references104

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles

              Background Narrative reviews are the commonest type of articles in the medical literature. However, unlike systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCT) articles, for which formal instruments exist to evaluate quality, there is currently no instrument available to assess the quality of narrative reviews. In response to this gap, we developed SANRA, the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles. Methods A team of three experienced journal editors modified or deleted items in an earlier SANRA version based on face validity, item-total correlations, and reliability scores from previous tests. We deleted an item which addressed a manuscript’s writing and accessibility due to poor inter-rater reliability. The six items which form the revised scale are rated from 0 (low standard) to 2 (high standard) and cover the following topics: explanation of (1) the importance and (2) the aims of the review, (3) literature search and (4) referencing and presentation of (5) evidence level and (6) relevant endpoint data. For all items, we developed anchor definitions and examples to guide users in filling out the form. The revised scale was tested by the same editors (blinded to each other’s ratings) in a group of 30 consecutive non-systematic review manuscripts submitted to a general medical journal. Results Raters confirmed that completing the scale is feasible in everyday editorial work. The mean sum score across all 30 manuscripts was 6.0 out of 12 possible points (SD 2.6, range 1–12). Corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.33 (item 3) to 0.58 (item 6), and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.68 (internal consistency). The intra-class correlation coefficient (average measure) was 0.77 [95% CI 0.57, 0.88] (inter-rater reliability). Raters often disagreed on items 1 and 4. Conclusions SANRA’s feasibility, inter-rater reliability, homogeneity of items, and internal consistency are sufficient for a scale of six items. Further field testing, particularly of validity, is desirable. We recommend rater training based on the “explanations and instructions” document provided with SANRA. In editorial decision-making, SANRA may complement journal-specific evaluation of manuscripts—pertaining to, e.g., audience, originality or difficulty—and may contribute to improving the standard of non-systematic reviews.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Integr Complement Med
                J Integr Complement Med
                jicm
                Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine
                Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers (140 Huguenot Street, 3rd Floor New Rochelle, NY 10801 USA )
                2768-3605
                2768-3613
                March 2024
                15 March 2024
                15 March 2024
                : 30
                : 3
                : 216-232
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
                [ 2 ]Private Practice, Melbourne, Australia.
                [ 3 ]US-Clinical Compass, Lexington SC, USA.
                [ 4 ]Texas Chiropractic College, TX, USA.
                [ 5 ]School of Allied Health, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia.
                [ 6 ]Private Practice, Perth, Australia.
                [ 7 ]Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia.
                [ 8 ]Private Practice, Insight Counselling, Perth, Australia.
                [ 9 ]Private Practice, Kidspace, Tolland, CT, USA.
                [ 10 ]Advanced Medicine Integration Group, Columbus, OH, USA.
                [ 11 ]Clinical Compass, Columbus, OH, USA.
                [ 12 ]Private Practice, Sale, Australia.
                [ 13 ]Aus-ACA, Sale, Australia.
                [ 14 ]Private Practice, Richmond, VA, USA.
                [ 15 ]US-ACA.
                [ 16 ]Private Practice, Olympia, WA, USA.
                [ 17 ]Life University, Marietta, GA, USA.
                [ 18 ]Private Practice, Bendigo, Australia.
                [ 19 ]Anglo European College of Chiropractic, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.
                [ 20 ]School of Allied Health, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia.
                [ 21 ]Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA, USA.
                [ 22 ]University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
                [ 23 ]Private Practice, The Thompson Method Breastfeeding, Melbourne, Australia.
                [ 24 ]Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Australia.
                Author notes
                [*]Address correspondence to: Lyndon Amorin-Woods, BAppSc (Chiropractic), MPH, School of Allied Health, Murdoch University Chiropractic Clinic, Murdoch University, Murdoch 6150, Australia l.woods@ 123456murdoch.edu.au
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9195-7702
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1461-3065
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4621-9812
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1906-5299
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0697-6955
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5992-6479
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8790-3429
                Article
                10.1089/jicm.2023.0010
                10.1089/jicm.2023.0010
                10954607
                37902954
                22617d41-ca5b-43da-b721-445881d33fb9
                © Genevieve Keating et al., 2024; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

                This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License [CC-BY] ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 8, References: 107, Pages: 17
                Categories
                Review Articles

                adolescent,chiropractic,child,infant,spine,spinal,manipulation,mobilization,pediatrics

                Comments

                Comment on this article