SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2024
Effects of spinal mobilization on physical function in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify, critically appraise, and synthesize current evidence regarding the effects of spinal mobilization on physical function in patients with stroke. Three databases, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, were searched from inception to March 15, 2024. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of spinal mobilization to conventional therapy were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the effects of spinal mobilization. Nine randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 294 patients with stroke. All included studies were evaluated as good or above for quality assessment. No adverse events related to spinal mobilization were reported. Compared to conventional therapy, spinal mobilization demonstrated significantly improved forward head posture (SMD: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.46, p < 0.001); there were no between-group differences on forced vital capacity (SMD: 0.44, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.88, p = 0.06), forced expiratory volume (SMD: 0.33, 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.77, p = 0.15), balance (SMD: 0.36, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.77, p = 0.08), gait speed (SMD: 0.48, 95% CI: -0.44 to 1.40, p = 0.31), and trunk function (SMD: 0.79, 95% CI: -0.17 to 1.75, p = 0.11). Cervical mobilization significantly improved forward head posture; however, no significant differences were found in other outcomes. Clinicians may consider spinal mobilization as an adjunctive intervention in stroke rehabilitation to address posture-related impairments to expand treatment strategy and optimize quality of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38780853What 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.