Spinal Manipulation or Mobilization for Radiculopathy a Systematic Review

Spinal Manipulation or Mobilization for Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy: A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Assay

Abstract

Context:

The purpose of this report is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis into the furnishings of spinal manipulation or mobilization for lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy (LDHR).

Evidence Acquisition:

An electronic database search of titles and abstracts of articles published in English will exist conducted in the post-obit databases: PEDro (physiotherapy evidence database), CINAHL (cumulative index to nursing and allied wellness literature), PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and The Cochrane Library. The specific search strategies will depend on the particular database being searched. Hand searches of the reference lists of the included manufactures will be performed. Studies would exist included if they reported an adequate comparing group and at to the lowest degree one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures for LDHR. Two independent reviewers volition screen the identified records and all disagreements will be resolved. The internal and external validities of the included studies will be assessed using the PEDro scale and the external validity assessment tool (EVAT), respectively. The clinical relevance and risk of bias of the studies volition be determined using v criteria developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group and the Cochrane Gamble of Bias Assessment Tool, respectively. Studies will exist pooled into the meta-analysis where appropriate using RevMan software and the outcomes volition be reported using the PRISMA guidelines.

Conclusions:

This review will summarize the current evidence about the furnishings of spinal manipulation or mobilization compared with other interventions in the management of individuals with LDHR. A meta-analysis will too be conducted where appropriate in this review to compare the effects of spinal manipulation or mobilization and other interventions to find out which technique is better in the management of individuals with LDHR.

Keywords

Spinal Manipulation Spinal Mobilization Lumbar Disc Herniation Systematic Review Meta-Analysis

1. Context

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common condition that frequently affects the spine in young and centre-aged individuals (one). This status is usually treated when the disc cloth compresses the thecal sac or lumbar nerve roots (2). The pain that comes from LDH occurs due to a combination of some factors including nervus root ischemia and inflammation resulting from local pressure and degeneration of the disc textile (3), which after leads to lower limb radiculopathy (iv).

Lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy (LDHR) is treated using diverse therapies including surgical management (5), nonsurgical management (6), and a combination of many therapies (7). The possible reason for the beingness of many different treatment strategies for the management of LDHR is that none of them seems to work all the fourth dimension. One of the bug inherent in treating patients with LDHR is the difficulty in determining which intervention applies to which patients (eight). Withal, during the last few decades, the paradigm regarding the best non-operative treatment to treat LDHR has shifted between spinal manipulation (9-17) and mobilization (eighteen-25).

Fifty-fifty though at that place are a few recent systematic reviews (26, 27) that have examined the effects of spinal manipulation and mobilization, these reviews were largely conducted on participants with non-specific low-back (26, 27) and neck pains (27). Not-specific depression-back or neck pain is quite unique and different from LDHR considering the former is defined equally the hurting not owing to a recognizable or known specific pathology (28) while the latter is defined every bit the localized deportation of disc textile across the limits of the intervertebral disc space resulting in pain, weakness, or numbness in a myotome or dermatome distribution (29). Based on these definitions, it is very clear that the etiology of the hurting in non-specific low-back or neck hurting is often unknown and not categorized with a major pathogenic etiology, which is in dissimilarity to LDHR.

Although a systematic review by Leininger et al. (30) collated the published evidence on the effects of spinal manipulation or mobilization for lumbar radiculopathy, the report failed to puddle outcomes or identify who benefits more from spinal manipulation and who from mobilization. In that location are ii potential explanations for the failure of the Leininger et al. review to identify this divergence in treatment issue, including the poor reporting of data and the clinical heterogeneity of the included trials and their respective participants.

In addition, it has also been suggested that the median duration of survival time of a systematic review is 5.5 years, with almost one-quarter (23%) of the included studies beingness out of appointment in the first two years of publication (31). There has been a considerable growth in testify-based practice since 2011, with an additional number of new trials existence published. Therefore, a new study is highly warranted to gather the current evidence regarding the management of LDHR using spinal manipulation and/or mobilization. The objective of the current systematic review is to compare and summarize the current testify regarding the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and/or mobilization for patients with radiculopathy due to lumbar disc herniation and if advisable to identify who benefits more from manipulation and who from mobilization.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Sources

An electronic database search of titles and abstracts of manufactures published in English language will be conducted in the following databases: PEDro (physiotherapy evidence database), CINAHL (cumulative index to nursing and centrolineal health literature), PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and The Cochrane Library. The specific search strategies volition depend on the particular database being searched. The MeSH criteria for PubMed and Cochrane database search strategies will exist used. In PEDro, a unproblematic search volition be conducted, combining search terms separately. In CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Science Direct, all search terms volition be combined. The keywords and search strategies used for the PubMed database are illustrated in Table 1. The reference lists of the included articles volition also exist manually searched. This review has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42019131292). Any alter regarding the review volition exist updated in the PROSPERO database.

Table one. PubMed Search Strategy

No.	Search Terms
1	Spinal manipulation or high-velocity manipulative thrust or high-velocity depression-amplitude manipulative thrust
two	Spinal mobilization or spinal apophyseal glides or spinal oscillations
3	Lumbar disc herniation or lumbar disc disease or lumbar disc lesion or lumbar disc proplapse or discogenic lumbar disc
4	1, 2, and 3

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Studies will be included if they run into the post-obit criteria: (1) investigating male and/or female participants diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation of any duration, (two) recruiting participants with the age of eighteen or above, (three) using spinal manipulation and/or mobilization of the spine equally the primary therapy in at to the lowest degree one intervention group or in combination with other active treatments, (4) reporting an acceptable comparison group including no handling, placebo, and any other type of active intervention, (5) evaluating outcome(south) including at to the lowest degree one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures for lumbar disc herniation (i.e., hurting, functional ability, global perceived effect, sciatica frequency, sciatica bothersomeness, return to piece of work, absenteeism, or recovery) using a valid instrument, and (six) randomized controlled or clinical trials (RCTs) published in English language. Studies not performing between-group analyses for the measured outcomes volition be excluded from the review.

2.iii. Written report Selection

Two independent reviewers will conduct the electronic database searches and screen the titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies (encounter Figure 1 for the review flow chart). After the removal of duplication records, full copies of potential eligible papers volition exist retrieved and screened past the two reviewers. The percentage of understanding betwixt the reviewers volition be assessed using Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic method (32). Disagreements will be resolved by consensus with a 3rd reviewer if applicable.

Figure 1. Study Pick Process

2.4. Data Extraction

Data to exist extracted from the studies include study blueprint, sample size, sexual activity, age, participants, interventions, outcomes, and follow-up. In add-on, the information will also be retrieved directly from previous systematic reviews conducted in the field of spinal manipulation and mobilization (26, 27, thirty). Data will exist extracted by ii independent reviewers and will be cross-checked by other co-authors so that whatever disagreements volition be resolved by consensus.

2.5. Methodological Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of the included studies will be reported in a table. The rating of trials on methodological quality (internal validity) will be carried out using the PEDro scale (supplementary file Appendix 1) (33). The calibration was developed past Verhagen et al. (34) using the Delphi consensus technique to develop a list of criteria thought by the experts in the field to mensurate the methodological quality. The scoring of the PEDro scale depends on the number of items in the calibration and the design of the included studies. Items 2 - 9 refer to the internal validity of studies and items 10 and 11 refer to the statistical analysis, ensuring sufficient information to enable appropriate interpretation of the results. Detail ane is related to the external validity of the included studies and thus, it will not exist included in the total PEDro scores (35). Studies scoring ≥ vi out of 10 will be considered every bit high-quality, while studies scoring ≤ 6 out of 10 will be considered as low-quality (36). The external validity of the included studies will be assessed using the external validity assessment tool (EVAT) (37). This tool measures the generalizability of studies to other individuals (external validity) and settings (model validity) outside the scope of a written report.

2.6. Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias will exist assessed using the Cochrane chance of bias assessment tool (38). The tool uses five different items (selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias) to determine the quality of the included studies. The tool items will be rated on a three-point scale to appraise the take a chance of bias (0 = high-take a chance, 1 = unclear take chances, 2 = low-hazard). The tool has a maximum score of 16 points and lower scores indicate a higher risk of bias.

two.7. Clinical Relevance

The clinical relevance of the included studies will be independently assessed past two reviewers using the five-criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Grouping (supplementary file Appendix 2) (39). In addition, the authors will as well extend the third criterion to crave a paper to comment on the reliability and validity of the outcome measures used in their studies considering reporting on such backdrop is recommended in the revised Espoused statement (40).

2.8. Statistical Analysis

The included studies volition be categorized under split up comparisons with clinically homogeneous characteristics. A priori list of items will be used for data extraction. Both descriptive data and quantitative data will be extracted regarding the primary and secondary outcome measures. With sufficient clinically and statistically homogeneous and comparable reported outcomes, data will be pooled with the aid of RevMan-5 software and a random or fixed-effects model will exist used in the analysis (39). Between-study statistical heterogeneity will be assessed with the I^two statistic and this review will consider ≤ 25% equally low, ≤ 50% equally moderate, and ≥ 75% as high heterogeneity (41). To place publication bias, funnel plots will be examined (42).

ii.nine. Sensitivity Analysis

The reliability of our results volition be tested using sensitivity analysis (39). We have planned to assess the impact of using high-quality studies with low, medium, and high-quality combined studies.

3. Data Synthesis

Data synthesis volition be performed to pool studies for inclusion into the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis in this report will exist conducted in two parts. The first part will consist of studies that compared spinal manipulation with other interventions and the second function will consist of studies that compared spinal mobilization with other interventions. The criteria that will inform near the study choice for inclusion in the meta-analysis will be clinical homogeneity in the study population, study blueprint, consequence mensurate, and duration. Any study that did non run into the clinical homogeneity criteria will not be considered for inclusion in the meta-assay. In the case in which the meta-assay is not feasible, the best evidence synthesis volition be conducted using low-adventure-of-bias studies. The overall quality of the prove will be graded as high, moderate, low, or very low, according to the GRADE approach by Furlan et al. (39).

Statistical heterogeneity amongst included studies volition be assessed using the alphabetize of variability, chi-square exam (I²). If the I² is ≤ 25%, studies volition be considered homogeneous and the fixed-furnishings model will be used for the meta-analysis. If the I² is ≥ 75%, studies will be considered highly heterogeneous and the random-effects model will be used for the meta-analysis (43). In add-on, if all the included studies measured the same issue and used the same measurement scale, the hateful difference (MD) would be used to determine the effect mensurate. Furthermore, if all the included studies measured the same effect but did non use the aforementioned measurement scale, the effect measure out would exist determined by two options. The first choice is to convert the information and so that all data are on the same scale. However, if this is not possible, then the standardized mean difference (SMD) will be used. The SMD is the MD standardized (adjusted) past the units of the standard deviation. There are many standardized effect measures just this systematic review will use Hedge's chiliad, which includes an adjustment for small-scale sample bias and is used by default in the RevMan software (44).

4. Conclusions

This systematic review volition investigate and requite an overview of the electric current testify on the effects of spinal manipulation or spinal mobilization in comparison with other interventions in the management of individuals with LDHR. A meta-analysis volition also be conducted where advisable in this review to compare the effects of spinal manipulation or mobilization and other interventions to find out which technique is better in the management of LDHR. In addition, studies conducting a cervix-to-neck comparing of spinal manipulation with mobilization will be examined to decide which of the techniques is better in the management of LDHR. Furthermore, methodological limitations of the current review and that of the included trials will be reported to give recommendations for future inquiry.

References

• 1.

  Herkowitz HN. The spine. Saunders/Elsevier; 2011.

• 2.

  Iorio R. Primary techniques in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg. 2003;85(10):2067. doi: ten.2106/00004623-200310000-00038.

• 3.

  Majlesi J, Togay H, Unalan H, Toprak S. The sensitivity and specificity of the slump and the direct leg raising tests in patients with lumbar disc herniation. J Clin Rheumatol. 2008;14(2):87-91. doi: ten.1097/RHU.0b013e31816b2f99. [PubMed: 18391677].

• 4.

  Carragee East. Surgical treatment of lumbar disk disorders. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2485-seven. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.20.2485. [PubMed: 17119147].

• 5.

  Jacobs WC, Arts MP, van Tulder MW, Rubinstein SM, van Middelkoop M, Ostelo RW, et al. Surgical techniques for sciatica due to herniated disc, a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(eleven):2232-51. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2422-9. [PubMed: 22814567]. [PubMed Central: PMC3481105].

• vi.

  Hahne AJ, Ford JJ, McMeeken JM. Conservative management of lumbar disc herniation with associated radiculopathy: A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(11):E488-504. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cc3f56. [PubMed: 20421859].

• 7.

  Dan-Azumi MS, Bello B, Rufai SA, Abdulrahman MA. Surgery versus conservative management for lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Wellness Sciences. 2018;8(ane):42-53. doi: 10.17532/jhsci.2018.479.

• 8.

  Danazumi MS, Ibrahim SU, Abubakar MF, Yakasai AM, Zakari UU. Effect of spinal manipulation compared with spinal mobilization for lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy: Design of a randomized clinical trial with 1 year follow-upwards. Middle Due east J Rehabil Health Stud. 2019;half dozen(three). doi: 10.5812/mejrh.92770.

• 9.

  McMorland G, Suter E, Casha Due south, du Plessis SJ, Hurlbert RJ. Manipulation or microdiskectomy for sciatica? A prospective randomized clinical written report. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010;33(8):576-84. doi: x.1016/j.jmpt.2010.08.013. [PubMed: 21036279].

• 10.

  Peterson CK, Leemann S, Lechmann Grand, Pfirrmann CW, Hodler J, Humphreys BK. Symptomatic magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed lumbar deejay herniation patients: A comparative effectiveness prospective observational study of two age- and sex-matched cohorts treated with either loftier-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy or imaging-guided lumbar nerve root injections. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2013;36(iv):218-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2013.04.005. [PubMed: 23706678].

• 11.

  Burton AK, Tillotson KM, Cleary J. Single-blind randomised controlled trial of chemonucleolysis and manipulation in the handling of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Eur Spine J. 2000;nine(3):202-7. doi: ten.1007/s005869900113. [PubMed: 10905437]. [PubMed Central: PMC3611397].

• 12.

  Santilli 5, Beghi E, Finucci Due south. Chiropractic manipulation in the treatment of acute back pain and sciatica with disc protrusion: A randomized double-blind clinical trial of active and simulated spinal manipulations. Spine J. 2006;6(2):131-seven. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.001. [PubMed: 16517383].

• xiii.

  Coxhead CE, Inskip H, Meade TW, North WR, Troup JD. Multicentre trial of physiotherapy in the direction of sciatic symptoms. Lancet. 1981;1(8229):1065-8. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(81)92238-8. [PubMed: 6112444].

• 14.

  Mathews JA, Mills SB, Jenkins VM, Grimes SM, Morkel MJ, Mathews West, et al. Back pain and sciatica: controlled trials of manipulation, traction, sclerosant and epidural injections. Br J Rheumatol. 1987;26(vi):416-23. doi: ten.1093/rheumatology/26.6.416. [PubMed: 2961394].

• xv.

  Postacchini F, Facchini M, Palieri P. Efficacy of various forms of conservative treatment in low back pain. A comparative study. Neuro Orthoped. 1988;6:28-35.

• 16.

  Timm KE. A randomized-control written report of agile and passive treatments for chronic low back pain following L5 laminectomy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1994;20(6):276-86. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1994.20.half-dozen.276. [PubMed: 7849747].

• 17.

  Liu J, Zhang South. Treatment of protrusion of lumbar intervertebral disc by pulling and turning manipulations. J Tradit Chin Med. 2000;20(iii):195-7. [PubMed: 11038982].

• 18.

  Kumar SP, Cherian PJ. Efficacy of spinal mobilization in the treatment of patients with lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Neurol Neurosurg. 2011;iii(2):65-76.

• 19.

  Lopez-Diaz JV, Arias-Buria JL, Lopez-Gordo E, Lopez Gordo S, Oyarzun AP. "Effectiveness of continuous vertebral resonant oscillation using the POLD method in the treatment of lumbar disc hernia". A randomized controlled pilot written report. Homo Ther. 2015;20(three):481-6. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2014.11.013. [PubMed: 25511449].

• 20.

  Yadav S, Nijhawan MA, Panda P. Effectiveness of spinal mobilization with leg movement (SMWLM) in patients with lumbar radiculopathy (L5/S1 nerve root) in lumbar disc herniation. Int J Physiother Res. 2014;2(5):712-8.

• 21.

  Das SMS, Dowle P, Iyengar R. Upshot of spinal mobilization with leg move as an adjunct to neural mobilization and conventional therapy in patients with lumbar radiculopathy: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Sci Res. 2018;6(1):xi-9. doi: 10.17727/jmsr.2018/6-3.

• 22.

  Ahmed N, Khan Z. Comparing of mulligans spinal mobilization with limb movement (SMWLM) and neural tissue mobilization for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: A randomized clinical trial. J Novel Physiother. 2016;6(4):304. doi: 10.4172/2165-7025.1000304.

• 23.

  Paatelma M, Kilpikoski S, Simonen R, Heinonen A, Alen M, Videman T. Orthopaedic manual therapy, McKenzie method or advice but for low dorsum pain in working adults: A randomized controlled trial with 1 year follow-up. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(10):858-63. doi: ten.2340/16501977-0262. [PubMed: 19242624].

• 24.

  Hofstee DJ, Gijtenbeek JM, Hoogland PH, van Houwelingen HC, Kloet A, Lotters F, et al. Westeinde sciatica trial: Randomized controlled study of bed rest and physiotherapy for acute sciatica. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(1 Suppl):45-nine. doi: 10.3171/spi.2002.96.1.0045. [PubMed: 11797655].

• 25.

  Gudavalli MR, Cambron JA, McGregor M, Jedlicka J, Keenum M, Ghanayem AJ, et al. A randomized clinical trial and subgroup analysis to compare flexion-distraction with active exercise for chronic low dorsum hurting. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(7):1070-82. doi: x.1007/s00586-005-0021-8. [PubMed: 16341712]. [PubMed Central: PMC3233943].

• 26.

  Coulter ID, Crawford C, Hurwitz EL, Vernon H, Khorsan R, Suttorp Berth M, et al. Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-assay. Spine J. 2018;18(5):866-79. doi: ten.1016/j.spinee.2018.01.013. [PubMed: 29371112]. [PubMed Central: PMC6020029].

• 27.

  Roenz D, Broccolo J, Brust S, Billings J, Perrott A, Hagadorn J, et al. The impact of pragmatic vs. prescriptive study designs on the outcomes of depression dorsum and neck pain when using mobilization or manipulation techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Man Manip Ther. 2018;26(three):123-35. doi: x.1080/10669817.2017.1398923. [PubMed: 30042627]. [PubMed Cardinal: PMC6055961].

• 28.

  Maher C, Underwood K, Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2017;389(10070):736-47. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30970-9. [PubMed: 27745712].

• 29.

  Kreiner DS, Hwang SW, Easa JE, Resnick DK, Baisden JL, Bess S, et al. An testify-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. Spine J. 2014;xiv(1):180-91. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.003. [PubMed: 24239490].

• 30.

  Leininger B, Bronfort Thousand, Evans R, Reiter T. Spinal manipulation or mobilization for radiculopathy: A systematic review. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2011;22(one):105-25. doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2010.eleven.002. [PubMed: 21292148].

• 31.

  Shojania KG, Sampson K, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly practise systematic reviews become out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(four):224-33. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-iv-200708210-00179. [PubMed: 17638714].

• 32.

  Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(one):159-74. [PubMed: 843571].

• 33.

  Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins Thousand. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(viii):713-21. [PubMed: 12882612].

• 34.

  Verhagen AP, de Vet HCW, de Bie RA, Kessels AGH, Boers Grand, Bouter LM, et al. The Delphi list: A criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(12):1235-41. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00131-0.

• 35.

  Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Moseley AM. PEDro. A database of randomized trials and systematic reviews in physiotherapy. Man Ther. 2000;5(4):223-6. doi: 10.1054/math.2000.0372. [PubMed: 11052901].

• 36.

  Moseley AM, Herbert RD, Sherrington C, Maher CG. Evidence for physiotherapy practice: A survey of the Physiotherapy Bear witness Database (PEDro). Aust J Physiother. 2002;48(one):43-9. doi: x.1016/s0004-9514(14)60281-vi. [PubMed: 11869164].

• 37.

  Khorsan R, Crawford C. How to assess the external validity and model validity of therapeutic trials: A conceptual approach to systematic review methodology. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2014;2014:694804. doi: 10.1155/2014/694804. [PubMed: 24734111]. [PubMed Central: PMC3963220].

• 38.

  Furlan Advertising, Malmivaara A, Chou R, Maher CG, Deyo RA, Schoene K, et al. 2015 updated method guideline for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Grouping. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(21):1660-73. doi: ten.1097/BRS.0000000000001061. [PubMed: 26208232].

• 39.

  Furlan Advertising, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M; Editorial Board Cochrane Back Review Group. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(eighteen):1929-41. doi: ten.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f. [PubMed: 19680101].

• 40.

  Hopewell South, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, et al. Consort for reporting randomized controlled trials in periodical and conference abstracts: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2008;5(1). e20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020. [PubMed: 18215107]. [PubMed Central: PMC2211558].

• 41.

  Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. [PubMed: 12958120]. [PubMed Primal: PMC192859].

• 42.

  Liu JL. The part of the funnel plot in detecting publication and related biases in meta-analysis. Evid Based Paring. 2011;12(4):121-2. doi: x.1038/sj.ebd.6400831. [PubMed: 22193659].

• 43.

  Papageorgiou SN. Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Role I--How to choose effect measure and statistical model. J Orthod. 2014;41(four):317-26. doi: 10.1179/1465313314Y.0000000111. [PubMed: 25404668].

• 44.

  Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, Olkin I, Lau J. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: An empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2000;19(13):1707-28. doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1707::assist-sim491>iii.0.co;ii-p.

Copyright © 2020, Center Eastward Journal of Rehabilitation and Health Studies. This is an open up-admission article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/past-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the fabric just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.

romerotoodn1977.blogspot.com

Source: https://brief.land/mejrh/articles/98983.html

Share this post