Observational studyChiropractic & manual therapies2025
Force variability of thoracic spine mobilization and manipulation delivered by experienced physiotherapists to healthy human volunteers and a manikin: an observational study.
Observational study in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Thoracic spinal manipulation: exploring force-time profiles and force modulation strategies in French chiropractors.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
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
backgroundMany health care professionals use spinal mobilization (MOB) and manipulation (MAN) to treat musculoskeletal disorders. Research shows advantages of learning these techniques using a manikin. However, the force-time characteristics of MOB and MAN applied to manikins may differ from those delivered clinically to humans. This study reports on differences between the force-time characteristics of MOB and MAN delivered by experienced physiotherapists to the thoracic spine of both humans and a manikin.
methodsData were collected September-October 2023. Experienced physiotherapists applied prone MOB (Grade 3 central posterior-to-anterior, 30 s) and a single prone MAN to the T6 vertebra of three healthy human volunteers and a manikin with each volunteer-manikin pair representing one of three different patient scenarios (vignettes): vignette 1: 30-year-old male, 185 cm; vignette 2: 50-year-old male, 175 cm, and vignette 3: 65-year-old female, 165 cm. The applied forces were measured using a flexible pressure pad (100 Hz) and were compared descriptively between humans and the manikin.
resultsData were analyzed from 13 physiotherapists (seven females, age (median, IQR): 40 (36-45) years, experience as physiotherapist: 14 (12-21) years). Peak forces on the manikin were higher than on the humans. Specifically, for MOB, average mean peak force differences (95% confidence interval) were: vignette 1: 58N (36, 80); vignette 2: 99N (74, 124); and vignette 3: 50N (31, 68). Similarly, for MAN, average peak force differences were: vignette 1: 128N (79, 177); vignette 2: 147N (94, 199); and vignette 3: 137N (101, 172). For MAN, greater mean peak forces were applied on vignette 1 than vignette 3 on the human 355N vs 284N and on the manikin 483N vs 421N.
conclusionIn this study force-time characteristics of MOB and MAN performed by experienced physiotherapists on the thoracic spine of a manikin were different from those delivered to healthy humans: the forces applied to the manikin were higher for all vignettes for both techniques. However, forces were modulated to the vignette, both on the human and manikin.
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.