ArticleJournal of chiropractic medicine2016
Spinal Manipulation Vs Sham Manipulation for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of chiropractic medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04744883 (Evaluating Specific and Non-Specific Mechanisms in Two Distinct Complementary/Integrative Interventions for Chronic Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Evaluating Specific and Non-Specific Mechanisms in Two Distinct Complementary/Integrative Interventions for Chronic Pain
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Manual Therapy Effect in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Pooled it
- The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Spinal Manipulative Therapy on a Healthy Population: Protocol for a Randomized Blinding Feasibility Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Article
- The Changes of Brain Function After Spinal Manipulation Therapy in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Rest BOLD fMRI Study.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2022Article
- Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- The Effect of Spinal Manipulation on the Electrophysiological and Metabolic Properties of the Tibialis Anterior Muscle.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Efficacy of Tuina in patients with chronic low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Trials · 2020Article
- Spinal Manipulative Therapy Alters Brain Activity in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Longitudinal Brain fMRI Study.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2020Article
- The effects of chiropractic spinal manipulation on central processing of tonic pain - a pilot study using standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA).Scientific reports · 2019Article
- The effectiveness of manual physical therapy interventions in pediatric patients with anterior hip pain: a retrospective study.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2017Article
- Rehabilitative Principles in the Management of Thoracolumbar Syndrome: A Case Report.Journal of chiropractic medicine · 2017Article
- Providing chronic pain management in the "Fifth Vital Sign" Era: Historical and treatment perspectives on a modern-day medical dilemma.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2017Article
- Contextually Aided Recovery (CARe): a scientific theory for innate healing.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to identify and critically evaluate randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation (SM) vs sham manipulation in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain.
methodsFour electronic databases were searched from their inception to March 2015 to identify all relevant trials. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched. All data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Group Risk of Bias tool.
resultsNine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = - 0.36; 95% confidence interval, - 0.59 to - 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts.
conclusionThere is some evidence that SM has specific treatment effects and is more effective at reducing nonspecific low back pain when compared with an effective sham intervention. However, given the small number of studies included in this analysis, we should be cautious of making strong inferences based on these results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.