ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2026
Adverse event reporting in randomized trials of spinal manipulative therapy: a scoping review of practices and characteristics.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the availability of guidelines such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Harms extension, adverse event (AE) reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) remains inconsistent and incomplete. Many trials fail to provide essential AE details hindering the accurate assessment of SMT-related risks. Mapping the current landscape of AE reporting and identifying deficiencies is critical to improving transparency and advancing patient safety in SMT research and practice. PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive overview of AE reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating high-velocity, low-amplitude SMT for spinal pain, including AE types, characteristics and reporting practices. STUDY DESIGN/
settingScoping review based on a previous systematic review.
methodsWe searched PubMed and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews indexed up to February 2022 and conducted an updated systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from January 1, 2018, to September 12, 2023, with a final update on March 8, 2026. Eligible studies were RCTs involving SMT for spinal pain in adults, including multimodal SMT trials. Studies were included if published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Norwegian, Swedish, or Danish. AE data were extracted in three steps: whether AEs were mentioned, collected, and reported. For studies reporting AEs, detailed data on type, severity, duration, onset, relatedness, and additional care were categorized into meaningful subgroups. Summary statistics and visualizations were used to describe reporting patterns.
resultsOf 253 included RCTs, 55% mentioned AEs, 53% collected them, and only 28% reported their occurrence. AE characteristics were inconsistently reported, with wide variation in terminology and classification. Pain-related AEs were most common, typically described as mild in severity. However, characteristics such as duration, onset, and additional care required were often omitted. Relatedness was also inconsistently assessed.
conclusionAE reporting in SMT RCTs remains suboptimal and inconsistent with established standards. Improved adherence to standardized reporting frameworks, such as the CONSORT Harms extension, and a cultural shift toward treating AE monitoring as a core component of trial design are urgently needed to enhance transparency and strengthen patient safety.
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.