Trial reportChiropractic & manual therapies2026
Immediate clinical and neuromechanical effects of cervical spine manipulation compared to cervical spine mobilization among individuals with chronic neck pain: a randomized mechanistic cross-over 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpinal manipulation (SM) and spinal mobilization (Smob) are conservative therapies recommended by several clinical guidelines for the treatment of chronic neck pain (CNP). The purpose of this study was to investigate differences between clinical and neuromechanical effects of SM and Smob in patients with CNP.
methodsThis study was a randomized mechanistic cross-over trial. Eighty-nine individuals with mechanical neck pain participated in two sessions, 72 h apart, where they randomly received either SM or Smob during the first session and the other intervention during the second session. Recruitment took place in Zurich from August 2023 to January 2024, and in Trois-Rivières from March 2024 to June 2024. Cervical range of motion (ROM), pain intensity, grip-strength and pressure pain threshold (PPT) outcomes were assessed before and after each treatment, while muscular activity was recorded during the treatment using surface electromyographic electrodes (EMG). PPT and EMG activity were assessed for three muscles bilaterally: sternocleidomastoid (SCM), upper trapezius (UT) and tibialis anterior. Outcomes following SM and Smob were compared using linear mixed-effects model, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar test.
resultsAll ROM increased significantly over time after SM and Smob with no difference between interventions. However, pain intensity analyses showed a significant time x intervention interaction indicating a greater improvement following SM (mean decrease: 0.786 NPRS points) compared with Smob (mean decrease: 0.373 NPRS points) (β = 0.413, 95% CI [0.160; 0.665], p = 0.002). Muscular response was significantly higher after SM compared to Smob for both SCM (0.144 ± 0.121 vs. 0.023 ± 0.013) and UT (0.083 ± 0.100 vs. 0.024 ± 0.025) muscles, on both sides. A higher PPT was observed for SCM and UT after both interventions. No consistent change was observed for grip-strength. Overall, results showing statistical significance did not reach clinical significance.
conclusionAlthough SM and Smob both led to higher ROM, SM resulted in immediate lower subjective pain intensity and yielded higher muscular responses for participants with CNP. However, given the mechanistic nature of this study and the absence of clinically significant findings, caution is warranted when considering implications for clinical practice.
trial registrationThis trial was registered with Open Science Framework (OCF) on May 23, 2023. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UNBJ5 .
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.