Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2019
Effects of spinal manipulative therapy biomechanical parameters on clinical and biomechanical outcomes of participants with chronic thoracic pain: a randomized controlled experimental trial.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Evaluation of the Associations Between Spinal Manipulative Therapy Dosage and the Related Spinal Stiffness Modulation in Participants With Chronic Thoracic Pain
Immediate Effects of Thrust Versus Non-thrust Lumbar Manipulation on Mobility and Springing Force Tolerance in Lumbar Hypomobility
Effects of Lumbar Spinal Manipulation on Muscle Mechanical Properties, Pressure Pain Threshold and Mechanical Perception Threshold in Subjects With Chronic Low Back Pain
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review on biomechanical effects of high-velocity, low amplitude spinal manipulation.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- The effect on clinical outcomes when targeting spinal manipulation at stiffness or pain sensitivity: a randomized trial.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Thoracic spinal manipulation: exploring force-time profiles and force modulation strategies in French chiropractors.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Investigating force-time characteristics of prone thoracic SMT and self-reported patient outcome measures: a feasibility study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2023Article
- Article
- Factors Associated With Clinical Responses to Spinal Manipulation in Patients With Non-specific Thoracic Back Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Differences in force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics of two high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulations following one another in quick succession.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2020Article
- Secondary atlantoaxial subluxation in isolated cervical dystonia-a case report.AME case reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpinal manipulative therapy (SMT) includes biomechanical parameters that vary between clinicians, but for which the influence on the therapy clinical effects is unknown. This parallel-randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the effect of SMT biomechanical parameters on the outcomes of participants with chronic thoracic pain (CTP) following three treatment sessions (follow-up at one week).
methodsAdults reporting CTP (pain within the evaluated region [T6 to T8] for ≥3 months) were asked to participate in a four-session trial. At the first session, participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups (different SMT doses) or the control group (no SMT). During the first three sessions, one SMT was executed at T7 for the experimental groups, while a 5-min rest was provided to the control group. SMT were delivered through an apparatus using a servo-controlled linear actuator motor and doses consisted of peak forces, impulse durations, and rates of force application set at 135 N, 125 ms and 920 N/s (group 1), at 250 N, 125 ms and 1840 N/s (group 2), and at 250 N, 250 ms, 920 N/s (group 3). Disability and pain intensity were evaluated at each session (primary outcomes). Spinal stiffness was assessed before-and-after each SMT/rest and at follow-up. Tenderness and muscle activity were evaluated during each spinal stiffness trial. Improvement was evaluated at follow-up. Differences in outcomes between groups and sessions were evaluated as well as factors associated with clinical improvement.
resultsEighty-one participants were recruited and 17, 20, 20 participants of the three experimental groups and 18 of the control group completed the protocol. In exception of higher pain intensity at baseline in the control group, no between-group differences were found for any of the outcomes. A decrease in pain intensity, disability, spinal stiffness, and tenderness during spinal stiffness were observed (p-values< 0.05). At follow-up, 24% of participants were classified as 'improved'. Predictors of improvement were a greater decrease in pain intensity and in tenderness (p-values< 0.05).
conclusionsIn an experimental setting, the delivery of a SMT does not lead to significantly different outcomes in participants with CTP than a control condition (spinal stiffness assessment). Studies are still required to explore the mechanisms underlying SMT effects.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03063177 , registered 24 February 2017).
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.