“…All but three authors 25 – 27 reported if there were any conflicts of interest, and four reported that they received funding 23 , 24 , 31 , 32 . We contacted the authors of three articles 30 , 33 , 34 with insufficient data to estimate effect sizes. We received one response that allowed us to include that article 30 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We contacted the authors of three articles 30 , 33 , 34 with insufficient data to estimate effect sizes. We received one response that allowed us to include that article 30 . Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram of the literature search and study inclusion in a systematic review comparing the outcome of applying spinal manipulative therapy at a candidate site versus a non-candidate site.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Four studies did not report between-group estimates. Therefore, we calculated effect sizes from the reported within-group differences 25 , 26 , 30 , 32 . No outcomes were excluded due to having more than 20% missing data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 2 shows that only one study was assessed as having high RoB 28 , four as moderate RoB 27 , 29 , 31 , 32 , and five as low RoB 23 – 26 , 30 . Items that commonly were deficient were “naïve study subjects” (to SMT) and “other sources of bias” (statistical analysis was performed blinded) (Fig.…”
The concept that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) outcomes are optimized when the treatment is aimed at a clinically relevant joint is commonly assumed and central to teaching and clinical use (candidate sites). This systematic review investigated whether clinical effects are superior when this is the case compared to SMT applied elsewhere (non-candidate sites). Eligible study designs were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of spinal manipulation applied to candidate versus non-candidate sites for spinal pain. We obtained data from four different databases. Risk of bias was assessed using an adjusted Cochrane risk of bias tool, adding four items for study quality. We extracted between-group differences for any reported outcome or, when not reported, calculated effect sizes from the within-group changes. We compared outcomes for SMT applied at a ‘relevant’ site to SMT applied elsewhere. We prioritized methodologically robust studies when interpreting results. Ten studies, all of acceptable quality, were included that reported 33 between-group differences—five compared treatments within the same spinal region and five at different spinal regions. None of the nine studies with low or moderate risk of bias reported statistically significant between-group differences for any outcome. The tenth study reported a small effect on pain (1.2/10, 95%CI − 1.9 to − 0.5) but had a high risk of bias. None of the nine articles of low or moderate risk of bias and acceptable quality reported that “clinically-relevant” SMT has a superior outcome on any outcome compared to “not clinically-relevant” SMT. This finding contrasts with ideas held in educational programs and clinical practice that emphasize the importance of joint-specific application of SMT.
“…All but three authors 25 – 27 reported if there were any conflicts of interest, and four reported that they received funding 23 , 24 , 31 , 32 . We contacted the authors of three articles 30 , 33 , 34 with insufficient data to estimate effect sizes. We received one response that allowed us to include that article 30 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We contacted the authors of three articles 30 , 33 , 34 with insufficient data to estimate effect sizes. We received one response that allowed us to include that article 30 . Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram of the literature search and study inclusion in a systematic review comparing the outcome of applying spinal manipulative therapy at a candidate site versus a non-candidate site.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Four studies did not report between-group estimates. Therefore, we calculated effect sizes from the reported within-group differences 25 , 26 , 30 , 32 . No outcomes were excluded due to having more than 20% missing data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 2 shows that only one study was assessed as having high RoB 28 , four as moderate RoB 27 , 29 , 31 , 32 , and five as low RoB 23 – 26 , 30 . Items that commonly were deficient were “naïve study subjects” (to SMT) and “other sources of bias” (statistical analysis was performed blinded) (Fig.…”
The concept that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) outcomes are optimized when the treatment is aimed at a clinically relevant joint is commonly assumed and central to teaching and clinical use (candidate sites). This systematic review investigated whether clinical effects are superior when this is the case compared to SMT applied elsewhere (non-candidate sites). Eligible study designs were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of spinal manipulation applied to candidate versus non-candidate sites for spinal pain. We obtained data from four different databases. Risk of bias was assessed using an adjusted Cochrane risk of bias tool, adding four items for study quality. We extracted between-group differences for any reported outcome or, when not reported, calculated effect sizes from the within-group changes. We compared outcomes for SMT applied at a ‘relevant’ site to SMT applied elsewhere. We prioritized methodologically robust studies when interpreting results. Ten studies, all of acceptable quality, were included that reported 33 between-group differences—five compared treatments within the same spinal region and five at different spinal regions. None of the nine studies with low or moderate risk of bias reported statistically significant between-group differences for any outcome. The tenth study reported a small effect on pain (1.2/10, 95%CI − 1.9 to − 0.5) but had a high risk of bias. None of the nine articles of low or moderate risk of bias and acceptable quality reported that “clinically-relevant” SMT has a superior outcome on any outcome compared to “not clinically-relevant” SMT. This finding contrasts with ideas held in educational programs and clinical practice that emphasize the importance of joint-specific application of SMT.
“…According to a study, manipulative treatment methods were applied to patients to reduce the pains of theirs and significant results about reducing pain were obtained. (Romero del Rey et al, 2020). Harmful manipulation is the suppression and restriction of a person's willpower through manipulation.…”
Manipulation which is a type of social influence occurs when a person influences and operates another person by changing their thoughts or behaviors. Manipulation differs from its purpose. Harmful manipulation has features such as suppressing the person by manipulating the person, restricting free will and showing implicit aggression. At the same time, the manipulator’s motives are hidden and the goal is to benefit the manipulator.
Dating violence is defined as being subjected to abuse by husband/ wife, date, girlfriend/boyfriend or ex-partner.
The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between being affected by the manipulation in students’ close relationships and exposure to dating violence in their emotional relationships.
This research is descriptive. 200 students between the ages of 18-28 at Yeditepe University participated in the study. Three different questionnaire forms were used to collect data. They are respectively demographic form, being affected by the manipulation questionnaire which consists of 20 questions and the exposure to dating violence questionnaire which consists of 42 questions. The answer to each question has an equal coefficient effect. At the end of the exposure to dating violence questionnaire, there is a description of a forensic case and questions about whether the case was resolved or not. Exposure to dating violence questionnaire consists of 7 sub-categories; emotional, verbal, social, physical, economic, sexual and digital.
The mean age of the participants is 22,08±2,03. Participants consist of students who 48% (N=96) are men and 52% (N=204) are women.
According to Pearson Correlation analysis; there is a moderately significant positive correlation between exposure to dating violence and being affected by manipulation (r= .319, p <0.001).
The findings suggest that when the rate of being affected by the manipulation in the close relationships of participants increases, dating violence increases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
