Adverse events from spinal manipulations in the pregnant and postpartum periods: a systematic review and update.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to update a previous critical review of adverse events in pregnant and postpartum populations. METHODS: The following databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE. We included all study design types as it was determined a priori that there would not be enough high-quality research on spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in these populations to make any determinations. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and CARE (CAse REport) checklists were used for quality rating. RESULTS: This update found one case study that demonstrated a serious adverse event in the cervical spine following SMT and a handful of minor and transient adverse events in the low back following SMT. CONCLUSIONS: There was limited evidence of adverse events following SMT in these populations. Although we are calling for improved reporting of such events in future studies, it may be that such injuries are rare.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".