Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24436697›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based spine-care journal2013

The outcomes of manipulation or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy or exercise for neck pain: a systematic review.

Josh Schroeder, Leon Kaplan, Dena J Fischer, Andrea C Skelly

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based spine-care journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Exercises for mechanical neck disorders.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Trends in management of myofacial pain.National journal of maxillofacial surgery
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Josh SchroederDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, United States.
Leon KaplanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Unit, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Dena J FischerSpectrum Research, Inc., Tacoma, Washington, United States.
Andrea C SkellySpectrum Research, Inc., Tacoma, Washington, United States.
Hadassah Medical Center · ILHospital for Special Surgery · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale Neck pain is a prevalent condition. Spinal manipulation and mobilization procedures are becoming an accepted treatment for neck pain. However, data on the effectiveness of these treatments have not been summarized. Objective To compare manipulation or mobilization of the cervical spine to physical therapy or exercise for symptom improvement in patients with neck pain. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse Database, and bibliographies of key articles, which compared spinal manipulation or mobilization therapy with physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. Articles were included based on predetermined criteria and were appraised using a predefined quality rating scheme. Results From 197 citations, 7 articles met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were no differences in pain improvement when comparing spinal manipulation to exercise, and there were inconsistent reports of pain improvement in subjects who underwent mobilization therapy versus physical therapy. No disability improvement was reported between treatment groups in studies of acute or chronic neck pain patients. No functional improvement was found with manipulation therapy compared with exercise treatment or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy groups in patients with acute pain. In chronic neck pain subjects who underwent spinal manipulation therapy compared to exercise treatment, results for short-term functional improvement were inconsistent. Conclusion The data available suggest that there are minimal short- and long-term treatment differences in pain, disability, patient-rated treatment improvement, treatment satisfaction, health status, or functional improvement when comparing manipulation or mobilization therapy to physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. This systematic review is limited by the variability of treatment interventions and lack of standardized outcomes to assess treatment benefit.

Indexed as

exercisemobilization therapyneck painphysical therapyspinal manipulation

Identifiers

PMID24436697
PMCPMC3699243
OpenAlexW2077274949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.