Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32884045›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2020

The effect on clinical outcomes when targeting spinal manipulation at stiffness or pain sensitivity: a randomized trial.

Casper Glissmann Nim, Gregory Neil Kawchuk, Berit Schiøttz-Christensen, Søren O'Neill

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05986370 (The METRIC Study Protocol), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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.

NCT05986370 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

The METRIC Study Protocol: an Explanatory Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating the Neurophysiological Mechanisms Underlying the Therapeutic Effects of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresRan2023 to 2026Enrolled112ConditionsChronic Low-back PainArmslumbar spinal manipulative therapy, sham spinal manipulative therapy, full spine spinal manipulative therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Casper Glissmann NimMedical Research Unit, Spine Centre of Southern Denmark, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. casper.nim@rsyd.dk.
Gregory Neil KawchukDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Berit Schiøttz-ChristensenDepartment of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Søren O'NeillMedical Research Unit, Spine Centre of Southern Denmark, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
University of Southern Denmark · DKUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mechanisms underlying pain relief following spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are not understood fully although biomechanical and neurophysiological processes have been proposed. As such, we designed this randomized trial to elucidate the contributions of biomechanical and neurophysiological processes. A total of 132 participants with low back pain were randomly assigned to receive SMT at either the lumbar segment measured as the stiffest or the segment measured as having the lowest pain threshold. The primary outcome was patient reported low back pain intensity following treatment. Secondary outcomes were biomechanical stiffness and neurophysiological pressure pain threshold. All outcomes were measured at baseline, after the fourth and final session and at 2-weeks follow-up. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models, and demonstrated that the SMT application site did not influence patient reported low back pain intensity or stiffness. However, a large and significant difference in pressure pain threshold was observed between groups. This study provides support that SMT impacts neurophysiological parameters through a segment-dependent neurological reflex pathway, although this do not seem to be a proxy for improvement. This study was limited by the assumption that the applied treatment was sufficient to impact the primary outcome.

Indexed as

Manipulation, SpinalAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHumansLow Back PainLumbosacral RegionMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPain ThresholdTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32884045
PMCPMC7471938
OpenAlexW3082543088

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.