ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2026
Knowledge and use of thoracic manipulations by manual therapists in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBeneficial effects of thoracic manipulations (TM) have been demonstrated; however, there is a lack of clarity regarding their use in clinical practice. PURPOSE: To investigate the knowledge and use of TM in primary care manual therapy in Belgium and the Netherlands.
methodsAn online survey hosted on Google Forms was designed and distributed across various platforms to manual therapists and students enrolled in a Master's/Postgraduate program in manual therapy. Data were collected regarding demographics, types of complaints, types of manipulation, and types of intervention. Participation occurred between 1 November 2022 and 31 July 2024.
resultsOne hundred and seven surveys were analyzed. Thoracic complaints treated with TM were mostly muscular in origin (94%). Most participants (79%) did not utilize a specific screening tool, instead relying on clinical experience to exclude red flags. The majority agreed that metabolic bone diseases and metastatic diseases (
conclusionMost clinicians rely on experience rather than a pre-screening tool when assessing the thoracic region, focussing on excluding red flags and determining indications for TM, with biomechanical effects being the most favored rationale. Although most findings showed agreement, some inconsistencies were noted regarding screening and rationale, highlighting the importance of clinical reasoning for safe TM 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.