In our recent article for Chiropractic & Osteopathy ("Through the rear view mirror: a content evaluation of the journal Chiropractic & Osteopathy for the years 2005-2008" Chiropr Osteopat. 2008 Nov 13;16(1):14.) it has been pointed out to us that we inadvertently have an error in some of the data in the paper. Our comparison of the number of clinical trials in Chiropractic & Osteopathy to the number published in JMPT is incorrect. The actual number of trials in Chiropractic & Osteopathy was 10/84 or 12%. This figure was arrived at by surveying each article. The comparative figure for JMPT was derived from the data from MEDLINE and is 16.6% for trials. Unlike our analysis for Chiropractic & Osteopathy we have no way of knowing if the figure in MEDLINE is accurate or not. When the same search is done for Chiropractic & Osteopathy on MEDLINE it shows 0 for trials. So even that comparison might be problematic. The 31% figure we quote in the article for Chiropractic & Osteopathy is for clinical studies (26/84) not clinical trials.
Ian D. Coulter
Raheleh Khorsan
Competing interests
None declared
Through the Rear Window
David Millar, Department of Health, Government of Saskatchewan
19 January 2009
Sincere thanks to Coulter and Khorsan for this thoughtful review of the publishing history of this journal. It is interesting to note that so many articles come from the US, however. there are likely many more chiropractors per capita in the US than elsewhere. The authors wonder about a name change. A name change would likely create confusion. I would encourage more osteopaths and osteopathic colleges to use this journal as a publishing vehicle.<br><br>I receive the alerts for the journaland find them to be very helpful. I find most of the articles to be well reasoned and generally thought-provoking.<br><br>Keep up the good work!<br><br>David P. Millar, DC, BSc<br>Chiropractic Consultant<br>Medical Services Branch<br>Department of Health <br>Government of Saskatchewan<br>Regina, SK
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
Erratum
1 December 2008
In our recent article for Chiropractic & Osteopathy ("Through the rear view mirror: a content evaluation of the journal Chiropractic & Osteopathy for the years 2005-2008" Chiropr Osteopat. 2008 Nov 13;16(1):14.) it has been pointed out to us that we inadvertently have an error in some of the data in the paper. Our comparison of the number of clinical trials in Chiropractic & Osteopathy to the number published in JMPT is incorrect. The actual number of trials in Chiropractic & Osteopathy was 10/84 or 12%. This figure was arrived at by surveying each article. The comparative figure for JMPT was derived from the data from MEDLINE and is 16.6% for trials. Unlike our analysis for Chiropractic & Osteopathy we have no way of knowing if the figure in MEDLINE is accurate or not. When the same search is done for Chiropractic & Osteopathy on MEDLINE it shows 0 for trials. So even that comparison might be problematic. The 31% figure we quote in the article for Chiropractic & Osteopathy is for clinical studies (26/84) not clinical trials.
Ian D. Coulter
Raheleh Khorsan
Competing interests
None declared
Through the Rear Window
19 January 2009
Sincere thanks to Coulter and Khorsan for this thoughtful review of the publishing history of this journal. It is interesting to note that so many articles come from the US, however. there are likely many more chiropractors per capita in the US than elsewhere. The authors wonder about a name change. A name change would likely create confusion. I would encourage more osteopaths and osteopathic colleges to use this journal as a publishing vehicle.<br><br>I receive the alerts for the journaland find them to be very helpful. I find most of the articles to be well reasoned and generally thought-provoking.<br><br>Keep up the good work!<br><br>David P. Millar, DC, BSc<br>Chiropractic Consultant<br>Medical Services Branch<br>Department of Health <br>Government of Saskatchewan<br>Regina, SK
Competing interests
None declared