Lessons learned from cases of rib fractures after manual therapy: a case series to increase patient safety.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify commonalities among cases of rib fractures after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT); discuss chiropractors' case management perspectives; and propose strategies for prevention and/or management of future cases. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with chiropractors who identified cases of rib fractures after SMT at a chiropractic institution's teaching clinics. Patient characteristics, incident characteristics, and chiropractors' perspectives were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Three chiropractors were interviewed, each identifying one case. Patient ages ranged from 57-77; two were female; two had osteopenia; two cases involved thoracic SMT; and one involved lumbar SMT. Chiropractors agreed that verifying and updating potential contributing factors for rib fractures, transparent communication prior to SMT and/or after the adverse event (AE) occurrence, and enhancing student education on AE management were important. CONCLUSION: Important lessons can be learned from AEs, despite their infrequent occurrences. A more open and constructive patient safety environment is needed within the chiropractic profession.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".