Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28633885›Full record

ArticleJournal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics

Characteristics of Paraspinal Muscle Spindle Response to Mechanically Assisted Spinal Manipulation: A Preliminary Report.

William R Reed, Joel G Pickar, Randall S Sozio, Michael A K Liebschner, Joshua W Little, Maruti R Gudavalli

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. A modern way to teach and practice manual therapy.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
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

6 authors.

William R ReedPalmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA. Electronic address: wreed@uab.edu.
Joel G PickarPalmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA.
Randall S SozioPalmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA.
Michael A K LiebschnerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Research Service Line, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX.
Joshua W LittleCenter for Anatomical Science and Education, Department of Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Maruti R GudavalliPalmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA.

Funding

RENOVATION OF PALMER CENTER FOR CHIROPRACTIC RESEARCHC06RR015433 · NCRR · PALMER COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC · PI MEEKER, WILLIAM C · 2000 to 2000
$1.3M
Effect of Lumbar Hypo & Hypermobility on Sensory Responses to Spinal ManipulationK01AT005935 · NCCIH · PALMER COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC · PI REED, WILLIAM RAY · 2010 to 2014
$638k
NCCIH NIH HHS K01 AT005935NCRR NIH HHS C06 RR015433
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this preliminary study is to determine muscle spindle response characteristics related to the use of 2 solenoid powered clinical mechanically assisted manipulation (MAM) devices.

methodsL6 muscle spindle afferents with receptive fields in paraspinal muscles were isolated in 6 cats. Neural recordings were made during L7 MAM thrusts using the Activator V (Activator Methods Int. Ltd., Phoenix, AZ) and/or Pulstar (Sense Technology Inc., Pittsburgh, PA) devices at their 3 lowest force settings. Mechanically assisted manipulation response measures included (a) the time required post-thrust until the first action potential, (b) differences in mean frequency (MF) and mean instantaneous frequency (MIF) 2 seconds before and after MAM, and (c) the time required for muscle spindle discharge (MF and MIF) to return to 95% of baseline after MAM.

resultsDepending on device setting, between 44% to 80% (Pulstar) and 11% to 63% (Activator V) of spindle afferents required >6 seconds to return to within 95% of baseline MF values; whereas 66% to 89% (Pulstar) and 75% to 100% (Activator V) of spindle responses returned to within 95% of baseline MIF in <6 seconds after MAM. Nonparametric comparisons between the 22 N and 44 N settings of the Pulstar yielded significant differences for the time required to return to baseline MF and MIF.

conclusionShort duration (<10 ms) MAM thrusts decrease muscle spindle discharge with a majority of afferents requiring prolonged periods (>6 seconds) to return to baseline MF activity. Physiological consequences and clinical relevance of described MAM mechanoreceptor responses will require additional investigation.

Indexed as

AnimalsCatsDisease Models, AnimalElectric StimulationEquipment DesignMaleManipulation, SpinalMechanoreceptorsMuscle SpindlesParaspinal MusclesRandom AllocationSensitivity and SpecificityAfferent NeuronsMuscle SpindlesSpinal ManipulationSpine

Identifiers

PMID28633885
PMCPMC5679286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.