Psychometric properties of clinician-reported and performance-based outcomes cited in a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations with diverse medical conditions: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Risks and benefits of spinal manipulations and mobilization in pediatric populations are a concern to the public, policymakers, and international physiotherapy governing organizations. Clinical Outcome Assessments (COA) used in the literature on these topics are contentious. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the quality of clinician-reported and performance-based COAs identified by a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations across diverse medical conditions.Method and analysis Electronic databases, clinicaltrials.gov and Ebsco Open Dissertations were searched up to 21 October 2022. Qualitative synthesis was performed using Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to select studies, perform data extraction, and assess risk of bias. Data synthesis used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) to determine the certainty of the evidence and overall rating: sufficient (+), insufficient (-), inconsistent (±), or indeterminate (?).Results Four of 17 identified COAs (77 studies, 9653 participants) with supporting psychometric research were classified as:Performance-based outcome measures: AIMS – Alberta Infant Motor Scale (n = 51); or:Clinician-reported outcome measures: LATCH – Latch, Audible swallowing, Type of nipple, Comfort, Hold (n = 10),Cobb Angle (n = 15),Postural Assessment (n = 1).AIMS had an overall sufficient (+) rating with high certainty evidence, and LATCH had an overall sufficient (+) rating with moderate certainty of evidence. For the Cobb Angle and Postural Assessment, the overall rating was indeterminate (?) with low or very low certainty of evidence, respectively.Conclusion The AIMS and LATCH had sufficient evidence to evaluate the efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for certain pediatric medical conditions. Further validation studies are needed for other COAs.
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 | 0.092 | 0.370 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".