ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2019
Learning spinal manipulation: Gender and expertise differences in biomechanical parameters, accuracy, and variability.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thoracic spinal manipulation: exploring force-time profiles and force modulation strategies in French chiropractors.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Contextual factors related to aging determine force-based manipulation dosage: a prospective cross-sectional study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2025Article
- Comparison of force-time characteristics of prone cervicothoracic spinal manipulative therapy between chiropractic interns and chiropractors: A cross-sectional study.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2025Article
- Assessment of forces during side-posture adjustment with the use of a table-embedded force plate: Reference values for education.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2023Article
- Developing spinal manipulation psychomotor skills competency: A systematic review of teaching methods.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2023Article
- Mechanical properties of a thoracic spine mannequin with variable stiffness control.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate gender differences and expertise effects on biomechanical parameters as well as force accuracy and variability for students learning spinal manipulation.
methods: A total of 137 fourth- and fifth-year students were recruited for the study. Biomechanical parameters (preload, time to peak force, peak force, rate of force), as well as accuracy and variability of thoracic spine manipulation performance, were evaluated during 5 consecutive trials using a force-sensing table and a target force of 450 N. Gender, expertise differences on biomechanical parameters, as well as constant, variable, and absolute error were assessed using 2-way analysis of variance.
results: Analyses showed significant gender differences for several biomechanical parameters, as well as significant gender differences in accuracy and variability. Although women showed lower time to peak force and rate of force values, they were more precise and showed less variability than men when performing thoracic spine manipulations. Students with clinical expertise (fifth-year students) used less force and were more precise.
conclusion: Our results showed that gender differences in spinal manipulation performance exist and that these differences seem to be mainly explained by alternative motor strategies. To develop gender-specific teaching methods, future studies should explore why men and women approach spinal manipulation tasks differently.
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.