What We Do
Turning research into the standard of care.
Clinical Compass develops rigorous, consensus-based clinical practice guidelines for chiropractic care, then puts that evidence to work through education and advocacy that improves patient outcomes.
Evidence
The most thorough and informative research of its kind for doctors of chiropractic and other stakeholders: guidelines, systematic reviews, and best practice recommendations you can trust.
Learn MoreEducation
Training programs and speaker resources that help doctors of chiropractic apply current evidence in everyday practice and raise the quality of care.
Learn MoreEmpowerment
Information is power. We advocate for the profession and give doctors and associations the evidence they need to serve and protect their patients.
Learn MoreKnowledge Translation
Bridging the gap between research and the treatment room.
Published research only helps patients when it reaches the clinicians who care for them. Our mission is to improve patient outcomes by advancing evidence-based care and transforming healthcare through knowledge translation.
We collaborate with every major chiropractic organization, many state associations, individual chiropractors, and other healthcare providers committed to delivering the best evidence-based care. Our participation and process are as transparent as possible, and a diverse cross-section of the chiropractic profession is represented.
- Clinical practice guidelines developed through formal expert consensus
- Systematic reviews and best practice recommendations
- Continuing education, training, and a speakers bureau
- Advocacy support for state associations and the profession
Our Methodology
How we build guidelines: the Delphi Method
The Delphi Method is a structured, widely used approach for reaching expert consensus when research evidence alone can't answer every clinical question. It pairs the best available literature with the judgment of experienced clinicians and researchers, gathered anonymously over several rounds so that every voice carries equal weight.
Define the clinical question
We set the scope, target population, and outcomes that matter to patients and clinicians.
Review the evidence
A systematic search and appraisal of the literature produces an evidence summary that grounds every recommendation.
Convene an expert panel
A multidisciplinary panel of practitioners, researchers, and educators is drawn from across the profession and beyond.
Rate anonymously
Panelists independently rate draft recommendations and explain their reasoning, free from group pressure or hierarchy.
Refine and repeat
Aggregated, anonymized results are shared back. Recommendations are revised and re-rated until a predefined consensus threshold is met.
Publish and translate
Final guidelines undergo external peer review, are published, and are turned into practical tools and education for clinicians.
Why Delphi?
Face-to-face committees can be swayed by the loudest or most senior voice. Delphi's anonymous, iterative rounds produce recommendations that reflect the considered judgment of the whole panel, with a clear, documented path from evidence to consensus.
Understanding the Literature
Guidelines, reviews, commentaries and letters: how they compare
Clinical Compass produces and contributes to several kinds of scholarly work. Each plays a different role in evidence-based care, and knowing the difference helps clinicians, payers and policymakers judge how much confidence to place in what they read.
-
Guidelines & Best Practices
Clinical practice guidelines and best practice recommendationsEvidence weightHighest: actionable recommendationsPurposeTranslate the best available evidence into clear recommendations for managing specific conditions.
How it's producedA systematic literature review plus formal consensus (the Delphi Method) by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations are graded.
Review processExternal stakeholder review and journal peer review.
Best used forGuiding clinical decisions, documentation, policy and payer conversations.
-
Reviews
Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scoping and narrative reviewsEvidence weightHigh: synthesized researchPurposeCollect, appraise and summarize the research on a focused question.
How it's producedProtocol-driven search, study selection and quality appraisal, sometimes with meta-analysis. Narrative reviews are less structured.
Review processJournal peer review.
Best used forUnderstanding what the research shows and where it is thin. Reviews are the foundation guidelines are built on.
-
Commentaries
Editorials, perspectives and expert opinion piecesEvidence weightModerate: expert interpretationPurposeOffer expert interpretation and context on research, policy or practice issues.
How it's producedWritten by one or a few authors drawing on their expertise and selected literature, without a systematic method.
Review processEditorial review. Peer review varies by journal.
Best used forGrasping implications, debates and how new findings apply in everyday practice.
-
Letters to the Editor
Brief published responses to journal articlesEvidence weightContextual: scholarly dialoguePurposeRespond to a published article with critique, clarification or new observations.
How it's producedA short, focused submission, often answered by the original authors in a published reply.
Review processEditorial review. Usually not fully peer reviewed.
Best used forFollowing the scholarly conversation and spotting limitations or errors in published work.
For policymakers & payers
White Papers
Organization-published reports that make an evidence-based case to decision-makers, outside the journal literature.Higher when a systematic method is used.
Policymakers, payers, legislators and partner associations.
Explain an issue and the evidence around it, and make the case for a policy, coverage or practice position.
Written by the organization or commissioned experts, drawing on guidelines, reviews and data. Methods range from systematic to selective.
Internal and sometimes external expert review. Usually not journal peer reviewed.
Briefing decision-makers, supporting coverage and policy decisions, and advocacy.
Evidence weight reflects each publication type's general role in evidence-based practice. The quality of any individual paper still depends on its methods.
From conversation to care
- Letters & commentariesRaise questions, challenge findings and expose gaps.
- ReviewsGather and appraise the evidence on those questions.
- GuidelinesTurn the evidence into consensus recommendations.
- CliniciansApply the recommendations with their patients.
Policy & advocacy branch
- White papersPackage guideline and review evidence into a clear position for decision-makers.
- Policymakers & payersUse it to shape coverage, regulation and legislation.
Our Standards
Principles behind every recommendation
Rigor
Recommendations start from systematic evidence review and follow a documented, reproducible consensus process.
Transparency
Methods, panel composition, and consensus results are reported openly so the profession can see how conclusions were reached.
Inclusivity
Panels represent a diverse cross-section of the chiropractic profession and the wider healthcare community.
Patient focus
Every guideline is measured by one question: will it help clinicians deliver safer, more effective care?
