MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407237534 · doi:10.11124/jbies-24-00122

Global status of chiropractic education research and scholarly publications: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4407237534 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claire Johnson, Bart N. Green, Lyndon Amorin-Woods, Ilija Arar, Kara D. Burnham, David Byfield, Joel Carmichael, Waleska Crespo, Philip Dewhurst, Chantal Doucet, Marina Fox, Navine Haworth, Adrian Hunnisett, Russ Iwami, Amanda R Jones-Harris, Carolina Kolberg, Charmaine Korporaal, Craig S. Little, Celia P. Maguire, Kevin S. Mathers, John P. Mrozek, Sharné Naidoo, Robert M. Rowell, Gary D. Schultz, Gregory J. Snow, Stephanie Sullivan, Krista L. Ward, Stephney Whillier, David Wickes, Yi Kai Wong, Christopher Yelverton

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersDurban University of Technology
KeywordsChiropracticCINAHLMedical educationSystematic reviewAlternative medicineScopusWeb of scienceMedicineMEDLINEPolitical scienceMeta-analysisPsychological interventionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to map the volume (number of studies) and nature (topics and designs) of chiropractic education research and scholarly publications on chiropractic learners and programs worldwide. INTRODUCTION: Despite the expansion of the chiropractic profession and its recognition by entities such as the World Health Organization, a gap exists in comprehending the international landscape of chiropractic education. No prior studies have systematically mapped the volume and nature of chiropractic education research and scholarly publications. A scoping review of chiropractic education research and scholarly publications is needed to guide future policy development, research agendas, and educational initiatives within the chiropractic profession. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Publications in the indexed literature on chiropractic students, graduates, academics, and programs in any chiropractic education setting were included. Studies focused on chiropractic programs and education for chiropractic students or chiropractors worldwide were considered for inclusion. All research designs, literature reviews, descriptive studies, and commentaries were included. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted according to JBI methodology for scoping reviews and was reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The databases PubMed (NLM), Scopus, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde, and Educational Resources Information Center were searched from their inception to November 5 and 6, 2023, with no language limits. Data were extracted for primary topics, study designs, and regions of the included documents and entered in Covidence by paired independent reviewers. The findings were organized into figures and tables with a narrative description. RESULTS: The search identified 7494 documents. After deduplication, 5041 were screened for relevance, of which 667 were selected for full-text review. From these, 598 were selected for data extraction. The chiropractic education topics included values/ethical competence (n=3), personal/behavioral competence (n=34), knowledge and cognitive competence (n=49), functional and clinical competence (n=93), and program-relevant research (n=419). Most designs were quantitative (n=391), followed by descriptive reports (n=91), qualitative (n=43), mixed methods (n=40), commentaries (n=22), and literature reviews (n=11). Chiropractic education was most studied in the United States (n=359), Australia (n=116), and Canada (n=106). CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review reports the volume and nature of indexed publications relating to chiropractic learners and programs worldwide. This body of literature contains learner competencies in knowledge, skills, and attitudes, as well as studies about chiropractic programs. The increasing number of publications and proportion of study designs over time show that chiropractic scholars and programs are engaged in collecting, analyzing, and distributing data relevant to education and training. The map of professional competencies in the chiropractic education literature shows that the profession possesses the fundamental traits needed to contribute to the global health care workforce. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9b3ap. SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT: French- [ http://links.lww.com/SRX/A94 ], Spanish- [ http://links.lww.com/SRX/A93 ] Mandarin- [ http://links.lww.com/SRX/A87 ], Portuguese- [ http://links.lww.com/SRX/A88 ], Malaysian- [ http://links.lww.com/SRX/A90 ], and Welsh-language [ http://links.lww.com/SRX/A89 ] translations of the abstract are available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207