Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39261958›Full record

SynthesisChiropractic & manual therapies2024

Mechanisms of manipulation: a systematic review of the literature on immediate anatomical structural or positional changes in response to manually delivered high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation.

Kenneth J Young, Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde, Lindsay Gorrell, Cecilia Bergström, David W Evans, Iben Axén, Kenneth Chance-Larsen, Olivier Gagey, Vasileios Georgopoulos, Guillaume Goncalves and 9 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Spinal manipulation/mobilization: past, present, future.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

19 authors.

Kenneth J YoungAllied Health Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK. kjyoung1@uclan.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8837-7977
Charlotte Leboeuf-YdeDepartment of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Lindsay GorrellDepartment of Chiropractic Medicine, Integrative Spinal Research Group, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Cecilia BergströmDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
David W EvansSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Iben AxénKarolinska Institutet, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Nobels V. 13, 177 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kenneth Chance-LarsenDepartment of Health and Functioning, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
Olivier GageyUniversité de Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
Vasileios GeorgopoulosAdvanced Physiotherapist Practitioner, University of Nottingham, A25 Academic Rheumatology, Clinical Sciences Building, City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
Guillaume GoncalvesAllied Health Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Catherine HarrisSynthesis, Economic Evaluation and Decision Science (SEEDS) Group, Health Technology Assessment Unit | Applied Health Research Hub, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Steen HarstedCenter for Muscle and Joint Health, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Roger KerrySchool of Health Sciences, Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Room B228a, Nottingham, UK.
Edward LeeDivision of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England.
Christopher McCarthyDepartment of Health Professions, Faculty of Health and Education, Brooks Building, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Casper NimDepartment of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Luana NyiröDepartment of Chiropractic Medicine, Integrative Spinal Research Group, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Petra SchweinhardtDepartment of Chiropractic Medicine, Integrative Spinal Research Group, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Steven VogelUniversity College of Osteopathy, 275 Borough High Street, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpinal manipulation (SM) has been claimed to change anatomy, either in structure or position, and that these changes may be the cause of clinical improvements. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate and synthesise the peer-reviewed literature on the current evidence of anatomical changes in response to SM.

methodsThe review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022304971) and reporting was guided by the standards of the PRISMA Statement. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane Library all databases, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to 11 March 2022 and updated on 06 June 2023. Search terms included manipulation, adjustment, chiropractic, osteopathy, spine and spine-related structures. We included primary research studies that compared outcomes with and without SM regardless of study design. Manipulation was defined as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust delivered by hand to the spine or directly related joints. Included studies objectively measured a potential change in an anatomical structure or in position. We developed a novel list of methodological quality items in addition to a short, customized list of risk of bias (RoB) items. We used quality and RoB items together to determine whether an article was credible or not credible. We sought differences in outcomes between SM and control groups for randomised controlled trials and crossover studies, and between pre- and post-SM outcomes for other study designs. We reported, in narrative form, whether there was a change or not.

resultsThe search retrieved 19,572 articles and 20 of those were included for review. Study topics included vertebral position (n = 3) facet joint space (n = 5), spinal stiffness (n = 3), resting muscle thickness (n = 6), intervertebral disc pressure (n = 1), myofascial hysteresis (n = 1), and further damage to already damaged arteries (n = 1). Eight articles were considered credible. The credible articles indicated that lumbar facet joint space increased and spinal stiffness decreased but that the resting muscle thickness did not change.

conclusionWe found few studies on this topic. However, there are two promising areas for future study: facet joint space and spinal stiffness. A research strategy should be developed with funding for high quality research centres.

Indexed as

Manipulation, SpinalHumansSpineChiropracticMechanismOsteopathyPhysiotherapySpinal manipulationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39261958
PMCPMC11389336

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.