ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Effectiveness of Thoracic Spine Manipulation for the Management of Neck Pain: A Systematic Umbrella Review with Risk of Bias and Methodological and Reporting Quality.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe purpose of this umbrella review was to assess the risk of bias and the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews that evaluated the effects of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on individuals with mechanical neck pain.
methodsTo be included, publications needed to be systematic reviews including studies with participants with neck pain >18 years old; at least two groups where the experimental intervention was TSM; assessed pain and/or function; and were published in English. Reviews limited to narrative, scoping, or retrospective studies, or those with cervical radiculopathy, were excluded. An electronic search was conducted in May 2025 using PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO Host), and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant articles from inception to May 2025. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020), and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS). Findings were summarized narratively and graphically.
resultsSeven reviews (27 unique studies; 1394 participants, aged 18-62 years) met the inclusion criteria. Some evidence supported TSM for short-term improvement in neck pain, but confidence in results was low to critically low based on the AMSTAR 2 results. Four reviews had a high overall risk of bias, and three had a low risk. Reporting compliance varied widely (0-100%).
conclusionsWhile all the included systematic reviews suggested that TSM is a viable short-term option for individuals with neck pain, the overall confidence in these results ranged from low to critically low, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the true benefit of TSM in clinical practice. Registered prospectively in PROSPERO (CRD420251034330).
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.