OBJECTIVES: To describe if there has been a change in the reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) since 2016.
DESIGN: A systematic literature review.
DATA SOURCES: Databases were searched from March 2016 to May 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spinal manipulation; chiropractic; osteopathy; physiotherapy; naprapathy; medical manipulation and clinical trial.
METHODS: Domains of interest (pertaining to adverse events) included: completeness and location of reporting; nomenclature and description; spinal location and practitioner delivering manipulation; methodological quality of the studies and details of the publishing journal. Frequencies and proportions of studies reporting on each of these domains were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to examine the effect of potential predictors on the likelihood of studies reporting on adverse events.
RESULTS: There were 5399 records identified by the electronic searches, of which 154 (2.9%) were included in the analysis. Of these, 94 (61.0%) reported on adverse events with only 23.4% providing an explicit description of what constituted an adverse event. Reporting of adverse events in the abstract has increased (n=29, 30.9%) while reporting in the results section has decreased (n=83, 88.3%) over the past 6 years. Spinal manipulation was delivered to 7518 participants in the included studies. No serious adverse events were reported in any of these studies.
CONCLUSIONS: While the current level of reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in RCTs has increased since our 2016 publication on the same topic, the level remains low and inconsistent with established standards. As such, it is imperative for authors, journal editors and administrators of clinical trial registries to ensure there is more balanced reporting of both benefits and harms in RCTs involving spinal manipulation.
OBJECTIVE: Spinal manual therapy (SMT) is often used to treat patients with spinal disorders; however, the underlying mechanisms of SMT are not fully understood. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the effect of SMT compared with sham treatment or no intervention on local or remote (segmental or non-segmental) pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions and people who are pain free.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of SMT on PPTs in patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions and in people who were pain free were included. Quality assessment and evidence synthesis were performed according to Cochrane Handbook recommendations. A meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean difference and 95% CIs.
RESULTS: Twenty-two reports were included in the present review. There were no significant results for an immediate effect of SMT on local (low certainty of evidence), remote (segmental) (low certainty of evidence), and remote (non-segmental) (low certainty of evidence) PPTs in patients with chronic pain as well as on local (moderate certainty of evidence) and remote (segmental) (low certainty of evidence) PPTs in people who were pain free. A small but significant effect (standardized mean difference = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.51; low certainty of evidence) was observed on remote (non-segmental) PPTs in people who were pain free, which was not considered a meaningful effect size.
CONCLUSION: No immediate, consistent, or meaningful hypoalgetic effect of SMT was shown on PPTs on various body areas. Involvement of spinal or supraspinal underlying mechanisms were, therefore, not confirmed via PPTs but should still be investigated using methods designed to assess central nervous pain processing.
IMPACT: No consistent and meaningful hypoalgesic effects of spinal manual therapy were demonstrated on PPTs in participants who were pain free and in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders.
To describe if there has been a change in the reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) since 2016.
DESIGN:
A systematic literature review.
DATA SOURCES:
Databases were searched from March 2016 to May 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spinal manipulation; chiropractic; osteopathy; physiotherapy; naprapathy; medical manipulation and clinical trial.
METHODS:
Domains of interest (pertaining to adverse events) included: completeness and location of reporting; nomenclature and description; spinal location and practitioner delivering manipulation; methodological quality of the studies and details of the publishing journal. Frequencies and proportions of studies reporting on each of these domains were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to examine the effect of potential predictors on the likelihood of studies reporting on adverse events.
RESULTS:
There were 5399 records identified by the electronic searches, of which 154 (2.9%) were included in the analysis. Of these, 94 (61.0%) reported on adverse events with only 23.4% providing an explicit description of what constituted an adverse event. Reporting of adverse events in the abstract has increased (n=29, 30.9%) while reporting in the results section has decreased (n=83, 88.3%) over the past 6 years. Spinal manipulation was delivered to 7518 participants in the included studies. No serious adverse events were reported in any of these studies.
CONCLUSIONS:
While the current level of reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in RCTs has increased since our 2016 publication on the same topic, the level remains low and inconsistent with established standards. As such, it is imperative for authors, journal editors and administrators of clinical trial registries to ensure there is more balanced reporting of both benefits and harms in RCTs involving spinal manipulation.
