SynthesisThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2026
Effectiveness of the Graston Technique for low back pain and thoracic spinal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative effects of static stretching, PNF, MET, Graston, and foam rolling on hamstring flexibility in adolescent soccer players: a randomized controlled trial.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Do Healthcare Professionals Agree with Delphi Expert Recommendations for Instrument Assisted Soft-Tissue Mobilization Precautions and Contraindications? An Exploratory Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLow back pain (LBP) and thoracic spinal pain are significant global health burdens, and the Graston Technique (GT), a form of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM), has gained popularity as a treatment option. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the effectiveness of GT for reducing pain and preventing disability in individuals with LBP and thoracic spinal pain.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, identifying four eligible studies from inception to August 2024. Both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcomes were changes in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Quantitative data were analyzed using meta-analysis, and qualitative synthesis was conducted for secondary outcomes. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.
resultsThe pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in VAS scores when comparing GT to placebo controls (Mean difference = -1.45, 95%CI [-2.24, -0.66]), suggesting that GT may effectively reduce pain. However, no significant difference was observed when compared to active interventions. The meta-analysis revealed no significant improvement in ODI scores with GT compared to placebo. Qualitative synthesis indicated potential benefits in range of motion, flexibility, proprioception, and quality of life.
conclusionThe GT may reduce spinal pain, particularly compared to placebo. However, these preliminary results require confirmation from further studies as its impact on functional outcomes and superiority over other treatments remain uncertain. Further high-quality research is necessary to confirm these findings and establish GT's role in clinical practice.
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.