Trial reportMusculoskeletal science & practice2017
Adverse events in a chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial for migraineurs.
Trial report in Musculoskeletal science & practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT01741714 (Is Chiropractic Spinal Manipulative Therapy an Efficient Treatment Option for Migraine? A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
Is Chiropractic Spinal Manipulative Therapy an Efficient Treatment Option for Migraine? A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache: a single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial.BMC research notes · 2017Trial
- Non-Pharmacological Treatments of Migraine: Current Evidence and Clinical Practice.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Combined chiropractic care and Tai Chi for chronic neck pain: A protocol for a pilot randomized trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Acute Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Symptoms patients receiving manual therapy experienced and perceived as adverse: a secondary analysis of a survey of patients' perceptions of what constitutes an adverse response.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2021Article
- The Integrative Migraine Pain Alleviation through Chiropractic Therapy (IMPACT) trial: Study rationale, design and intervention validation.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2020Article
- Article
- A risk-benefit assessment strategy to exclude cervical artery dissection in spinal manual-therapy: a comprehensive review.Annals of medicine · 2019Article
- What are the risks of manual treatment of the spine? A scoping review for clinicians.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnlike pharmacological randomized controlled trials (RCTs), manual-therapy RCTs do not always report adverse events (AEs). The few manual-therapy RCTs that provide information on AEs are frequently without details, such as the type and-, severity of the AE and reason for withdrawal.
objectiveTo prospectively report all AEs in a chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) RCT.
designA prospective 3-armed, single-blinded, placebo, RCT.
methodsSeventy migraineurs were randomized to the CSMT or a placebo, with 12 intervention sessions over three months. The recommendations by CONSORT and the International Headache Society's Task Force on AEs in migraine RCTs were followed. A standardized reporting scheme designed for pharmacological RCTs was used, and the AEs were described as frequencies and percentages within each group. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentages (absolute risk) of AEs in each group were calculated when possible. Attributable risk (%) and relative risk were calculated with the corresponding 95% CIs.
resultsAEs were assessed in 703 sessions, with 355 in the CSMT group and 348 in the placebo group. Local tenderness was the most common AE, reported by 11.3% and 6.9% of the CSMT group and the placebo group, respectively, and tiredness on the intervention day was reported by 8.5% and 1.4% of CSMT group and the placebo group, respectively. The highest attributable risk was for tiredness on the treatment day, 7.0% (CI 3.9-10.2%) which presented a relative risk of 5.9 (CI 2.3-15.0).
conclusionsAEs were mild and transient, and severe or serious AEs were not observed.
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.