ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2025
A description of serious adverse events following spinal manipulative therapy for adults with history of spine surgery: a single institution retrospective chart review.
Article in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adverse events among older adults receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation and related treatments: an updated systematic review.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Pooled it
- Adverse event reporting in randomized trials of spinal manipulative therapy: a scoping review of practices and characteristics.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Chiropractic management of a Veteran with persistent spinal pain syndrome-2 status-post L3-L5 laminectomy and Coflex interlaminar stabilization: a case report.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to describe patient demographics and medical history, clinical care characteristics, and short-term serious adverse events associated with SMT in adults with prior spine surgery.
methodsThis study was a retrospective chart review of adult (at least 18 years of age) patients with any prior spine surgery who underwent SMT between January 2010 and December 2021 at an academic medical center in the United States. Eligible charts were reviewed, and data were extracted and transcribed onto an a priori Microsoft Excel data extraction tool. Adverse events were defined as vertebral artery dissection, cauda equina syndrome, fracture in the location of SMT, or spine surgery hardware failure in the same spinal region of SMT within 10-days following SMT.
resultsA total of 418 unique patient's charts were eligible for review. The mean patient age was 50.6 years. The majority of patients were female (52.6%), White (90.7%), and non-Hispanic (97.8%). The most common types of spine surgeries were lumbar fusion (28.7%), cervical fusion (27.8%), and lumbar discectomy with laminectomy/foraminotomy (34.7%). The median time after surgery to first SMT was 311 days. There were no short-term incidents of vertebrobasilar/cervical artery injury, acute cauda equina, fractures in the same region of SMT application, or hardware failure.
conclusionThere were no incidents of serious adverse events in the short-term following SMT in individuals with prior spine surgery in this study. Findings from this study aid in evaluating the safety profile of SMT for patients with prior spine surgery. In addition, findings contribute to the development of future high-quality study designs for investigating the clinical effectiveness of SMT in this patient population.
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.