Elsevier

Manual Therapy

Volume 9, Issue 4, November 2004, Pages 183-184
Manual Therapy

Editorial
How to evaluate manual therapy: value and pitfalls of randomized clinical trials

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2004.04.002Get rights and content

References (0)

Cited by (21)

  • Reporting results in manual therapy clinical trials: A need for improvement

    2021, International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
  • Sample size, study length, and inadequate controls were the most common self-acknowledged limitations in manual therapy trials: A methodological review

    2021, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Within this category, the main reason stated by authors (41%) pointed to placebo or sham interventions not being optimal for the comparison. In the field of MT (or any discipline with a high interaction between patients and care providers), the use of placebos or sham interventions is highly influenced by the therapist who delivers the treatment [26,33]. Thus, in manual sham RCTs, isolating the “active ingredient” from other effects can be very complex [34].

  • A methodological review revealed that reporting of trials in manual therapy has not improved over time

    2020, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    In almost 60% of the analyzed MT trials, information on sample size calculation was not available, with no differences between the pre-C and post-C groups. MT trials are often based on small samples, which, in turn, usually results in type II error caused by low statistical power [33]; note that only 33% of our sample had n ≥ 100 (38% pre-C and 28% post-C). The mean number of participants was 118, and the comparison between pre-C and post-C groups points to a falling trend in the median sample size.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text