ArticleSystematic reviews2025
Critical limitations compromise the conclusions of a recent meta-analysis regarding spinal manipulation and migraine: a commentary.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. 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
backgroundA recent meta-analysis by Posadzki et al. synthesized randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for migraines. Considering Systematic Reviews recognizes several methodological guidelines and reporting standards, our Letter highlights deviations from best practice methodologies. MAIN
findingsWe detail issues with the search strategy, application of selection criteria, inclusion of data, and outcome reporting and analysis. We partially replicated the authors' search across three of their seven databases, which identified 1845 more articles than they reported. Finally, the authors' interpretations appear to conflate mild and transient adverse effects with serious ones and minimize potentially meaningful benefits of SMT.
conclusionThe methodological limitations in the meta-analysis by Posadzki et al. raise concerns about its reliability and reproducibility. Accordingly, we advise against relying on this study to guide clinical decision-making. Clinicians, patients, and stakeholders should interpret its conclusions cautiously when evaluating the appropriateness of SMT for migraine management.
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.