ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2026
The efficacy of mechanical spinal manipulation in the standing position in patients with non-specific low back pain: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 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
Introduction: Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is not attributable to a known cause and is a leading contributor to the global disease burden. The effect of specific spinal manipulation in patients with NSLBP using the vertical adjustment position standing (VAPS) technique described by Hartman remains unclear. This technique is used to address spinal restrictions and improve mobility. The main aim of the study was to examine the immediate and medium-term effects of VAPS on pain (VAS), mobility of the lumbar spine (MSt), and pain-related disability (ODI) in patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) using two types of spinal manipulation including the innovative Gravity Table. Material and methods: All patients ( Results: All subjects who met the inclusion criteria received the participant information sheet ("information part"), was informed about the possibility of withdrawing from the study at any stage of its duration, and provided informed consent. In the Gravity group, the greatest reduction in the level of pain was achieved, from 4.6 ±1.9 (M1) to 1.9 ±2.0 (M4) on the VAS scale. Analyses of ODI_M2 vs ODI_M4 indicated a significant reduction in the level of disability in the compared groups, and the lowest results were recorded in the group with the Gravity intervention (ODI_M2: 7.7 ±6.2; ODI_M4: 4.2 ±4.0; Conclusions: VAPS (performed by a therapist or using the Gravity Table) significantly improved pain (VAS) and MSt. A larger sample size may be needed to detect a significant effect on ODI.
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.