Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31988711›Full record

Trial reportChiropractic & manual therapies2020

The effect of a single spinal manipulation on cardiovascular autonomic activity and the relationship to pressure pain threshold: a randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled trial.

Mathieu Picchiottino, Margaux Honoré, Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde, Olivier Gagey, François Cottin, David M Hallman

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03273868 (The Effect of a Single Spinal Manipulation on Cardiovascular Autonomic Activity in Healthy Subjects), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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.

NCT03273868 nacompletednot on this map

The Effect of a Single Spinal Manipulation on Cardiovascular Autonomic Activity in Healthy Subjects: a Randomized, Cross-over, Sham-controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstitut Franco Europeen de ChiropratiqueRan2017 to 2018Enrolled51ConditionsManipulation, SpinalArmsHigh velocity low amplitude manipulation, Sham manipulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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.

Mathieu Picchiottino1Université Paris-Saclay CIAMS, 91405 Orsay, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3086-9909
Margaux Honoré1Université Paris-Saclay CIAMS, 91405 Orsay, France.
Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde1Université Paris-Saclay CIAMS, 91405 Orsay, France.
Olivier Gagey1Université Paris-Saclay CIAMS, 91405 Orsay, France.
François Cottin1Université Paris-Saclay CIAMS, 91405 Orsay, France.
David M Hallman5Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The autonomic nervous system interacts with the pain system. Knowledge on the effects of high velocity low amplitude spinal manipulations (SM) on autonomic activity and experimentally induced pain is limited. In particular, the effects of SM on autonomic activity and pain beyond the immediate post intervention period as well as the relationship between these two outcomes are understudied. Thus, new research is needed to provide further insight on this issue. Objectives: The aim was to assess the effect of a single SM (i.e. SM vs. sham) on cardiovascular autonomic activity. Also, we assessed the relationship between cardiovascular autonomic activity and level of pain threshold after the interventions. Method: We conducted a randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled trial on healthy first-year chiropractic students comprising two experimental sessions separated by 48 h. During each session, subjects received, in a random order, either a thoracic SM or a sham manipulation. Cardiovascular autonomic activity was assessed using heart rate and systolic blood pressure variabilities. Pain sensitivity was assessed using pressure pain threshold. Measurements were performed at baseline and repeated three times (every 12 min) during the post intervention period. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded. The effect of the SM was tested with linear mixed models. The relationship between autonomic outcomes and pressure pain threshold was tested with bivariate correlations. Results: Fifty-one participants were included, forty-one were finally analyzed. We found no statistically significant difference between SM and sham in cardiovascular autonomic activity post intervention. Similarly, we found no post-intervention relationship between cardiovascular autonomic activity and pressure pain threshold. Conclusion: Our results suggest that a single SM of the thoracic spine has no specific effect on cardiovascular autonomic activity. Also, we found no relationship between cardiovascular autonomic activity and pressure pain threshold after the SM. Further experimental research should consider the use of several markers of autonomic activity and a more comprehensive pain assessment. Trial registration: N° NCT03273868. Registered September 6, 2017.

Indexed as

Pain ThresholdAdolescentAdultAutonomic Nervous SystemBlood PressureCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHealthy VolunteersHeart RateHumansMaleManipulation, SpinalPressureYoung AdultAutonomic nervous systemHeart rate variabilityHigh velocity low amplitude manipulationHVLAManipulationPressure pain thresholdSpinal manipulation

Identifiers

PMID31988711
PMCPMC6971986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.