Are systematic reviews always accurate?

Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 163-165

  Chaitow, Leon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; CHIROPRACTIC; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE; PREDICTION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

EID: 33745196417     PISSN: 13608592     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2006.04.001     Document Type: Editorial

References (7)

1. Assendelft W., Morton S., Yu E., et al. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. A meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies. Annals of Internal Medicine 138 (2003) 871-881
2. Bockenhauer S., Julliard K., Sing K., et al. Quantifiable effects of osteopathic manipulative techniques on patients with chronic asthma. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 102 7 (2002) 371-375
3. Canter P., and Ernst E. Sources of bias in reviews of spinal manipulation for back pain. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 117 9-10 (2005) 333-341
4. Ernst E. Musculoskeletal conditions and complementary/alternative medicine. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 18 4 (2004) 539-556
5. Ernst E., and Canter P. A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 (2006) 189-193
6. Mehling W.E., Hamel K.A., et al. Randomized, controlled trial of breath therapy for patients with chronic low-back pain altern. Therapeutic Health and Medicine 11 4 (2005) 44-52
7. Yates H., Vardy T., Kuchera M., et al. Effects of OMT and concentric and eccentric maximal effort exercise on women with MS. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 102 5 (2002) 267-275