BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.
Dizziness is a common and often disabling disorder. In some people the cause of their dizziness is pathology or dysfunction of upper cervical vertebral segments that can be treated with manual therapy. The aim of the present study was to systematically review the literature on the manual therapy treatment of patients with cervicogenic dizziness, by identifying and evaluating both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (controlled clinical trials and non-controlled studies). Seven electronic databases were searched up to July 2003, article reference lists were screened and an expert panel elicited to obtain relevant trials. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and key data was extracted. Two reviewers assessed the validity of the studies using the Cochrane format and found that all studies had low methodological quality. However, a consistent finding was that all studies had a positive result with significant improvement in symptoms and signs of dizziness after manual therapy treatment. Therefore, Level 3 evidence for manual therapy treatment of cervicogenic dizziness was obtained indicating it should be considered in the management of patients with this disorder provided there is evidence of improvement. This review has identified the need for further RCTs of acceptable methodological quality.
BACKGROUND: A variety of manual therapies with similar postulated biologic mechanisms of action are commonly used to treat patients with asthma. Manual therapy practitioners are also varied, including physiotherapists, respiratory therapists, chiropractic and osteopathic physicians. A systematic review across disciplines is warranted.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for the effects of manual therapies for treatment of patients with bronchial asthma.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched for trials in computerized general (EMBASE, CINAHL and MEDLINE) and specialized databases (Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, Cochrane Rehabilitation Field, Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL), and Manual, Alternative and Natural Therapy (MANTIS)). In addition, we assessed bibliographies from included studies, and contacted authors of known studies for additional information about published and unpublished trials. Date of most recent search: August 2004.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they: (1) were randomised; (2) included asthmatic children or adults; (3) examined one or more types of manual therapy; and (4) included clinical outcomes with observation periods of at least two weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using a standard form.
MAIN RESULTS: From 473 unique citations, 68 full text articles were retrieved and evaluated, which resulted in nine citations to three RCTs (156 patients) suitable for inclusion. Trials could not be pooled statistically because studies that addressed similar interventions used disparate patient groups or outcomes. The methodological quality of one of two trials examining chiropractic manipulation was good and neither trial found significant differences between chiropractic spinal manipulation and a sham manoeuvre on any of the outcomes measured. One small trial compared massage therapy with a relaxation control group and found significant differences in many of the lung function measures obtained. However, this trial had poor reporting characteristics and the data have yet to be confirmed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of manual therapies for patients with asthma. There is a need to conduct adequately-sized RCTs that examine the effects of manual therapies on clinically relevant outcomes. Future trials should maintain observer blinding for outcome assessments, and report on the costs of care and adverse events. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of manual therapy for patients with asthma.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite the many published randomized clinical trials (RCTs), a substantial number of reviews and several national clinical guidelines, much controversy still remains regarding the evidence for or against efficacy of spinal manipulation for low back pain and neck pain.
PURPOSE: To reassess the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and mobilization (MOB) for the management of low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP), with special attention to applying more stringent criteria for study admissibility into evidence and for isolating the effect of SMT and/or MOB.
STUDY DESIGN: RCTs including 10 or more subjects per group receiving SMT or MOB and using patient-oriented primary outcome measures (eg, patient-rated pain, disability, global improvement and recovery time).
METHODS: Articles in English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch reporting on randomized trials were identified by a comprehensive search of computerized and bibliographic literature databases up to the end of 2002. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality according to eight explicit criteria. A best evidence synthesis incorporating explicit, detailed information about outcome measures and interventions was used to evaluate treatment efficacy. The strength of evidence was assessed by a classification system that incorporated study validity and statistical significance of study results. Sixty-nine RCTs met the study selection criteria and were reviewed and assigned validity scores varying from 6 to 81 on a scale of 0 to 100. Forty-three RCTs met the admissibility criteria for evidence.
RESULTS: Acute LBP: There is moderate evidence that SMT provides more short-term pain relief than MOB and detuned diathermy, and limited evidence of faster recovery than a commonly used physical therapy treatment strategy. Chronic LBP: There is moderate evidence that SMT has an effect similar to an efficacious prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, SMT/MOB is effective in the short term when compared with placebo and general practitioner care, and in the long term compared to physical therapy. There is limited to moderate evidence that SMT is better than physical therapy and home back exercise in both the short and long term. There is limited evidence that SMT is superior to sham SMT in the short term and superior to chemonucleolysis for disc herniation in the short term. However, there is also limited evidence that MOB is inferior to back exercise after disc herniation surgery. Mix of acute and chronic LBP: SMT/MOB provides either similar or better pain outcomes in the short and long term when compared with placebo and with other treatments, such as McKenzie therapy, medical care, management by physical therapists, soft tissue treatment and back school. Acute NP: There are few studies, and the evidence is currently inconclusive. Chronic NP: There is moderate evidence that SMT/MOB is superior to general practitioner management for short-term pain reduction but that SMT offers at most similar pain relief to high-technology rehabilitative exercise in the short and long term. Mix of acute and chronic NP: The overall evidence is not clear. There is moderate evidence that MOB is superior to physical therapy and family physician care, and similar to SMT in both the short and long term. There is limited evidence that SMT, in both the short and long term, is inferior to physical therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data synthesis suggests that recommendations can be made with some confidence regarding the use of SMT and/or MOB as a viable option for the treatment of both low back pain and NP. There have been few high-quality trials distinguishing between acute and chronic patients, and most are limited to shorter-term follow-up. Future trials should examine well-defined subgroups of patients, further address the value of SMT and MOB for acute patients, establish optimal number of treatment visits and consider the cost-effectiveness of care.
OBJECTIVE: To provide a brief overview of the current state of evidence for chiropractic care, specifically in the management of asthma and to a lesser extent allergy.
DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE for English-language articles published between January 1966 and July 2002 was conducted using the keywords asthma, allergy, manual therapy, physical therapy techniques, chiropractic, physical therapy (specialty), physiotherapy, massage, and massage therapy. A hand search of the primary chiropractic and osteopathic literature on the treatment of asthma was performed, and proceedings from a recent research symposium on spinal manipulation were included.
STUDY SELECTION: Clinical controlled studies and systematic reviews on spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and asthma were selected. There were no primary clinical trials on SMT and allergy found.
RESULTS: Many of the claims of chiropractic success in asthma have been primarily based on anecdotal evidence or uncontrolled case studies. Three recently reported randomized controlled studies showed benefit in subjective measures, such as quality of life, symptoms, and bronchodilator use; however, the differences were not statistically significant between controls and treated groups. There were no significant changes in any objective lung function measures. The clinical issues emanating from these trials are discussed.
CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence to support the use of chiropractic SMT as a primary treatment for asthma or allergy. Based on reported subjective improvement in patients receiving chiropractic care, certain clinical circumstances may warrant a therapeutic trial in patients with asthma. Further properly designed, collaborative research is needed to determine if there is a role for chiropractic SMT in the care of asthma or allergy.
BACKGROUND: Back pain is a common condition for which chiropractic treatment is often recommended. AIM: To evaluate critically the evidence for or against the effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation for back pain. DATA SOURCES: Five independent literature searches were carried out and bibliographies were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Only randomised clinical trials of chiropractic spinal manipulation with patients suffering from back pain were included. DATA EXTRACTION: The authors extracted data on trial design, methodological quality, sample size, patient characteristics, nature of intervention, outcome measures, follow-up and results. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies could be included. They related to all forms of back pain. Many trials had significant methodological shortcomings. Some degree of superiority of chiropractic spinal manipulation over control interventions was noted in 5 studies. More recent trials and those with adequate follow-up periods tended to be negative. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation is not supported by compelling evidence from the majority of randomised clinical trials.
AIMS: Chiropractic manipulation is mostly used for spinal problems but, in an increasing number of cases, also for non-spinal conditions. This systematic review is aimed at critically evaluating the evidence for or against the effectiveness of this approach.
METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched for all randomised clinical trials of chiropractic manipulation as a treatment of non-spinal pain. They were evaluated according to standardised criteria.
RESULTS: Eight such studies were identified. They related to the following conditions: fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel syndrome, infantile colic, otitis media, dysmenorrhoea and chronic pelvic pain. Their methodological quality ranged from mostly poor to excellent. Their findings do not demonstrate that chiropractic manipulation is an effective therapy for any of these conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Only very few randomised clinical trials of chiropractic manipulation as a treatment of non-spinal conditions exist. The claim that this approach is effective for such conditions is not based on data from rigorous clinical trials.
TECHNOLOGY NAME: Spinal manipulation for infant colic
DISEASE/CONDITION: Colic in infants is characterized by excessive and inconsolable crying that appears between the second and sixth weeks of life. Despite being a common occurrence, colic remains a medical enigma. The causes are unknown and despite significant research, a “cure” has not been found. There is no “gold standard” for treating infant colic.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION: Spinal manipulation involves quick, controlled techniques that are adapted for different ages and conditions. The force is applied by hand, suddenly rather than strongly, and moves the joint over a small range. In infants, the forces delivered are smaller than in adults and often only entail specific fingertip pressure. Spinal manipulation of infants is performed in an out-patient setting without the use of special equipment. Treatment usually involves more than one visit.
THE ISSUE: Up to 17% of families seek advice regarding their infant’s crying, contributing related costs to the health care system. Frequent episodes of infant colic can cause anxiety for parents and in some cases, excessive crying may trigger physical abuse such as that seen in “shaken baby syndrome.”
A number of remedies for colic have been tried, including spinal manipulation. The use of spinal manipulation in children is controversial.
ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review are to determine:
whether manipulating the spine, by itself, can reduce the signs and symptoms of infantile colic
if spinal manipulation is safe.
METHODS: CCOHTA performed a systematic literature review to identify relevant clinical trials. Titles and abstracts were screened and eligibility criteria were applied. The criteria for inclusion focused on study design, participants, interventions, safety and measured outcomes. We evaluated the potential exaggeration of results from trial reports by applying Jadad’s scale and assessing if the randomization sequence was adequately concealed from investigators. An intention-to-treat analysis also helped in understanding the strength of findings.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no convincing evidence that spinal manipulation alone can affect the duration of infantile colic symptoms.
The effect of spinal manipulation on sleep time, parental anxiety, quality of life and number of colic diagnoses could not be determined using available evidence.
The potential harm from the spinal manipulation of infants with colic could not be determined using the evidence available from controlled trials.
Chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) is often used as a treatment for neck pain. However, its effectiveness is unclear. The aim of this article was to evaluate systematically and critically the effectiveness of CSM for neck pain. Six electronic databases were searched for all relevant randomized clinical trials. Strict inclusion/exclusion criteria had been predefined. Key data were validated and extracted. Methodologic quality was assessed by using the Jadad score. Statistical pooling was anticipated but was deemed not feasible. Four studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two studies were on single interventions, and 2 included series of CSM treatments, both with a 12-month follow-up. The 2 short-term trials used spinal mobilization as a control intervention. The 2 long-term studies compared CSM with exercise therapy. None of the 4 trials convincingly demonstrated the superiority of CSM over control interventions. In conclusion, the notion that CSM is more effective than conventional exercise treatment in the treatment of neck pain was not supported by rigorous trial data.
Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS:
Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs).
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
