SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Is manual therapy effective for cervical dizziness? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of temporomandibular joint mobilization in the management of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Effectiveness of Tuina Therapy for Patients With Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Protocol for a Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Assessor-Blinded, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Vestibular Rehabilitation for Post-Concussive Vestibular Dysfunction: Pathophysiology, Evidence-Based Practice, and Future Perspectives.Korean journal of neurotrauma · 2026Review
- Assessment and Rehabilitation in Cervical Radiculopathy-Efficacy of Structured Program with or Without Neurotrophic Agents.Life (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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe pathophysiology of cervical-related dizziness (CD) is unclear. Manual therapy has been shown to be a possibility for treating the symptoms of CD. The proposed manual therapy treatments may target the upper cervical spine or take a more comprehensive approach. However, it is still unclear which of these approaches produces better results. Therefore, the aim of this review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of manual therapy targeting the upper cervical spine and the global manual therapy interventions compared with control or sham on dizziness impact, intensity, frequency, pain intensity, and neck disability.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted on Cochrane Library, PubMed, PEDro, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 2, 2024. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were included. The studies had to apply manual therapy and compare it with a placebo or a control group in patients with CD. The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale, and the certainty of evidence was assessed based on GRADE guidelines.
resultsSix RCTs and three secondary analyses were included. Meta-analyses revealed statistically significant differences between manual therapy focused on the upper cervical spine and control/placebo for impact and intensity of dizziness. The certainty of evidence was downgraded to very low for pain intensity, low or very low for cervical range of motion, and disability.
conclusionThere is low to very low certainty evidence indicating a difference in effectiveness between upper cervical spine interventions and control/placebo treatments for improving the impact and intensity of dizziness in patients with cervical-related dizziness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42024615329
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.