Emary Peter C, Stuber Kent J, Mbuagbaw Lawrence, Oremus Mark, Nolet Paul S, Nash Jennifer V, Bauman Craig A, Ciraco Carla, Couban Rachel J, Busse Jason W
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University.
Chiropractic Department, D'Youville University.
J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2022 Apr;66(1):7-20.
To examine the risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research.
We performed a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review of chiropractic mixed methods studies. We assessed risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and used generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with risk of bias.
Among 55 eligible studies, a mean of 62% (6.8 [2.3]/11) of MMAT items were fulfilled. In our adjusted analysis, studies published since 2010 versus pre-2010 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 3.68) and those published in journals with an impact factor versus no impact factor (aOR = 2.21; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.68) were associated with lower risk of bias.
Our findings suggest opportunities for improvement in the quality of conduct among published chiropractic mixed methods studies. Author compliance with the MMAT criteria may reduce methodological bias in future mixed methods research.
探讨整脊混合方法研究中的偏倚风险。
我们对整脊混合方法研究的元流行病学综述进行了二次分析。我们使用混合方法评估工具（MMAT）评估偏倚风险，并使用广义估计方程来探索与偏倚风险相关的因素。
在55项符合条件的研究中，MMAT项目平均有62%（6.8[2.3]/11）得到满足。在我们的校正分析中，2010年以后发表的研究与2010年以前发表的研究相比（校正比值比[aOR]=2.26；95%置信区间[CI]，1.39至3.68），以及发表在有影响因子期刊上的研究与无影响因子期刊上的研究相比（aOR=2.21；95%CI，1.33至3.68），偏倚风险较低。
我们的研究结果表明，已发表的整脊混合方法研究在实施质量方面有改进的空间。作者遵守MMAT标准可能会减少未来混合方法研究中的方法学偏倚。
