Trial reportChiropractic & manual therapies2026
Immediate effects of upper cervical spinal manipulation on cervical sensorimotor control in individuals with chronic primary cervical pain: an exploratory randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndividuals with chronic primary cervical pain (CPCP) often exhibit cervical sensorimotor impairment. Although upper cervical spinal manipulation (UCSM) is commonly used, its immediate effects on sensorimotor control remain unclear. This study investigated the immediate effects of UCSM at the C1–C2 segment on cervical sensorimotor control in individuals with CPCP using the cervical movement sense (CMS) test.
methodsThis study was an exploratory, single-blind, sham-controlled randomized controlled trial with a blinded outcome assessor. Thirty-five individuals with CPCP were recruited between May and June 2024 and randomly assigned to an experimental group (EG, n = 18), which received UCSM, or a control group (CG, n = 17), which received sham manipulation. The primary outcome was movement accuracy (MA), and secondary outcomes included movement time (MT), movement speed (MS), and movement accuracy–time ratio (MAT). These variables were assessed before and immediately after the intervention using a customized algorithm for video analysis in the CMS test. Each kinematic variable was analyzed using a two-way mixed-design ANOVA.
resultsFor MA, the Time × Group interaction was not statistically significant (p = 0.050). However, significant Time × Group interactions were observed for MT (p = 0.003) and MS (p = 0.001). Post-hoc analysis revealed that the EG showed a significant 11% decrease in MS (p = 0.002), whereas the CG showed a significant 13% decrease in MT (p = 0.009) and a significant 8% increase in MS (p = 0.042). No significant interaction was observed for the MAT (p = 0.055).
conclusionThis exploratory trial suggests that UCSM may have elicited a transient slowing of head and neck movement in the CMS test compared with sham manipulation. Under the task instructions emphasizing accuracy, this slowing may reflect a movement pattern favoring accuracy over speed, aligning with the speed–accuracy trade-off. Considering the descriptive trend toward increased MA, these kinematic changes may also be compatible with compensatory sensorimotor control immediately after UCSM. However, given the exploratory nature of this study, these interpretations should be accepted with caution. Future research is needed to validate these exploratory findings in a larger sample and to determine their long-term clinical relevance.
trial registrationThis trial was retrospectively registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), Republic of Korea (KCT00010683) on June 25, 2025.
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.