SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Efficacy and safety of spinal manipulative therapy in the management of acute neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07619586 (Effects of Lumbar Spinal Manipulation on Balance and Fall Risk in Patients With Chronic Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Effects of Lumbar Spinal Manipulation on Balance and Fall Risk in Patients With Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Crossover Trial
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishing research priorities in animal chiropractic: a mixed-methods study informed by interested parties.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2026Article
- On-site manual therapy for firefighters in Seoul: six-month utilization and outcome from a retrospective service analysis and web-based survey.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Thoracic Spine Manipulation for the Management of Neck Pain: A Systematic Umbrella Review with Risk of Bias and Methodological and Reporting Quality.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Resolution of Refractory Headache Symptoms Following Cervical Spinal Manipulation and Electrical Dry Needling in an Adolescent Female: A Case Report.Sage open pediatricsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is frequently used to manage neck pain; however, its efficacy and safety in treating acute neck pain (ANP) remain uncertain and require further investigation.
objectivesThis study aims to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of SMT in the treatment of ANP. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: A thorough search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro, and Cochrane Library databases, covering all studies from inception to March 20, 2023. Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess outcomes such as pain intensity, cervical range of motion (CROM), and disability. The PEDro Scale and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were utilized to evaluate the methodological quality and strength of evidence.
resultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 965 patients were included. Their PEDro scores ranged from 4-9 (mean: 6.38, SD: 1.25). Forest plot analysis showed SMT was better than the control in reducing pain (MD = -1.53, 95% CI [-2.22, -0.83]) and improving CROM in all measured aspects. It also significantly reduced disability scores (MD = -6.20, 95% CI [-9.81, -2.59]). No serious adverse events were reported.
conclusionsThe evidence supports the use of SMT as an effective and safe intervention for reducing pain, improving CROM, and decreasing disability in patients with ANP. These findings provide valuable insights for clinical practitioners and highlight the potential of SMT as a viable therapeutic option in managing ANP. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021264411.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.