Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36068588›Full record

ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2022

In vivo measurement of intradiscal pressure changes related to thrust and non-thrust spinal manipulation in an animal model: a pilot study.

William R Reed, Michael A K Liebschner, Carla R Lima, Harshvardhan Singh, Christopher P Hurt, Daniel F Martins, James M Cox, Maruti R Gudavalli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Spinal manipulation/mobilization: past, present, future.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

William R ReedRehabilitation Science Program, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA, USA. wreed@uab.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4580-485X
Michael A K LiebschnerDepartment of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Carla R LimaRehabilitation Science Program, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Harshvardhan SinghDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Christopher P HurtDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Daniel F MartinsPostgraduate Program in Health Sciences, University of Southern Santa Catarina, Palhoça, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
James M CoxClinician Private Practice, Fort Wayne, IN, USA.
Maruti R GudavalliCollege of Chiropractic Medicine, Keiser University, West Palm Beach, FL, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · USBaylor College of Medicine · USFWRadiology · USKeiser University · USPalmer College of Chiropractic · USUniversidade do Sul de Santa Catarina · BR

Funding

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 AT005935
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe intervertebral disc is a known back pain generator and is frequently the focus of spinal manipulative therapy evaluation and treatment. The majority of our current knowledge regarding intradiscal pressure (IDP) changes related to spinal manual therapy involves cadaveric studies with their inherent limitations. Additional in vivo animal models are needed to investigate intervertebral disc physiological and molecular mechanisms related to spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization treatment for low back disorders.

methodsMiniature pressure catheters (Millar SPR-1000) were inserted into either the L4-L5 or L5-L6 intervertebral disc of 3 deeply anesthetized adult cats (Oct 2012-May 2013). Changes in IDP were recorded during delivery of instrument-assisted spinal manipulation (Activator V® and Pulstar®) and motorized spinal flexion with/without manual spinous process contact.

resultsMotorized flexion of 30° without spinous contact decreased IDP of the L4-L5 disc by ~ 2.9 kPa, while physical contact of the L4 spinous process decreased IDP an additional ~ 1.4 kPa. Motorized flexion of 25° with L5 physical contact in a separate animal decreased IDP of the L5-L6 disc by ~ 1.0 kPa. Pulstar® impulses (setting 1-3) increased IDP of L4-L5 and L5-L6 intervertebral discs by ~ 2.5 to 3.0 kPa. Activator V® (setting 1-4) impulses increased L4-L5 IDP to a similar degree. Net changes in IDP amplitudes remained fairly consistent across settings on both devices regardless of device setting suggesting that viscoelastic properties of in vivo spinal tissues greatly dampen superficially applied manipulative forces prior to reaching deep back structures such as the intervertebral disc.

conclusionsThis study marks the first time that feline in vivo changes in IDP have been reported using clinically available instrument-assisted spinal manipulation devices and/or spinal mobilization procedures. The results of this pilot study indicate that a feline model can be used to investigate IDP changes related to spinal manual therapy mechanisms as well as the diminution of these spinal manipulative forces due to viscoelastic properties of the surrounding spinal tissues. Additional investigation of IDP changes is warranted in this and/or other in vivo animal models to provide better insights into the physiological effects and mechanisms of spinal manual therapy at the intervertebral disc level.

Indexed as

Intervertebral DiscManipulation, SpinalAnimalsCatsLumbar VertebraePilot ProjectsChiropracticIntervertebral discIntradiscal pressureLumbarSpinal manipulation

Identifiers

PMID36068588
PMCPMC9446573
OpenAlexW4294723760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.