SynthesisPM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2026
Application of variance ratios to assess heterogeneity of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A meta-epidemiological study.
Synthesis in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the pooled estimates and variability in pain and function outcomes for spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) versus sham SMT in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), which informs the potential for heterogeneity of treatment effect.
designMeta-epidemiological study. LITERATURE SEARCH: We used results from the previous Cochrane review and meta-analysis and performed updated electronic searches from May 2018 to June 2025. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing SMT to sham SMT for chronic low back pain. DATA SYNTHESIS: For the meta-epidemiological analysis, we estimated the variance ratios of pain and function outcomes for both pooled results and individual trials. Variance ratios statistically different than 0 indicate greater variability in one group, providing evidence that heterogeneity of treatment effect may be present.
resultsFifteen trials (n = 1141) were included in the analysis. No statistically significant or meaningful variance ratios were found in 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month pooled results for pain and function. Among individual RCTs, greater variability was found in two trials for the SMT group and four trials in the sham SMT for pain or function at the 1-month analysis.
conclusionThere were no significant differences in the variability of pain and function outcomes for SMT groups compared to sham SMT groups for chronic low back pain. This suggests there is no evidence the distribution around the mean estimate is different between interventions at all time points and does not support the potential for heterogeneity of treatment effect in this population. Nevertheless, we cannot conclusively rule out heterogeneity of treatment effect using variance ratios alone. This study provides an example of how using variance ratios in meta-analyses and RCTs can add other statistically and clinically meaningful findings.
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.