The immediate effects of cervical spine manipulation on pain and biochemical markers in females with acute non-specific mechanical neck pain: a randomized clinical trial

The majority of clinical trials assessing mobilization and manipulation for neck pain lack a pragmatic approach: a systematic review of 174 trials

BACKGROUND

Disorders of the cervical spine are some of the costliest musculoskeletal conditions to manage globally. Joint mobilization and manipulation have been shown to be an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the generalizability and clinical translation depends on the nature of the trial designs that inform its use. The extent to which randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing manual therapy treatments for cervical spine disorders fall on the efficacy (explanatory) -effectiveness (pragmatic) spectrum often informs how the findings are translated into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to determine where RCTs of manual therapy for neck disorders fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

METHODS

A search of three electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were completed for trials published from inception to May 2023. RCTs in which joint mobilization or manipulation were used to treat cervical spine disorders were assessed on the effectiveness-efficacy spectrum using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool and risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 174 trials met eligibility. RITES domain two trial setting (71.3% vs 16.1%), domain three flexibility of intervention(s) (62.1% vs 23%), and domain four clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) (51.7% vs 29.3%) all favored efficacy over effectiveness. Domain one participant characteristic(s) had a slightly greater emphasis on effectiveness compared to efficacy (36.8% vs 44.8%). Most studies (96%) had at least some risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Over half of the RCTs assessing the treatment effect of joint mobilization and manipulation for neck pain favor efficacy (explanatory) over effectiveness (pragmatic) designs. Future RCTs on this topic should consider a greater emphasis on pragmatic trial design components in order to better reflect real-world translation to clinical practice.

A modern way to teach and practice manual therapy

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal conditions are the leading contributor to global disability and health burden. Manual therapy (MT) interventions are commonly recommended in clinical guidelines and used in the management of musculoskeletal conditions. Traditional systems of manual therapy (TMT), including physiotherapy, osteopathy, chiropractic, and soft tissue therapy have been built on principles such as clinician-centred assessment, patho-anatomical reasoning, and technique specificity. These historical principles are not supported by current evidence. However, data from clinical trials support the clinical and cost effectiveness of manual therapy as an intervention for musculoskeletal conditions, when used as part of a package of care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to propose a modern evidence-guided framework for the teaching and practice of MT which avoids reference to and reliance on the outdated principles of TMT. This framework is based on three fundamental humanistic dimensions common in all aspects of healthcare: safety, comfort, and efficiency. These practical elements are contextualised by positive communication, a collaborative context, and person-centred care. The framework facilitates best-practice, reasoning, and communication and is exemplified here with two case studies.

METHODS

A literature review stimulated by a new method of teaching manual therapy, reflecting contemporary evidence, being trialled at a United Kingdom education institute. A group of experienced, internationally-based academics, clinicians, and researchers from across the spectrum of manual therapy was convened. Perspectives were elicited through reviews of contemporary literature and discussions in an iterative process. Public presentations were made to multidisciplinary groups and feedback was incorporated. Consensus was achieved through repeated discussion of relevant elements.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual therapy interventions should include both passive and active, person-empowering interventions such as exercise, education, and lifestyle adaptations. These should be delivered in a contextualised healing environment with a well-developed person-practitioner therapeutic alliance. Teaching manual therapy should follow this model.

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers

BACKGROUND

Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research.

MAIN TEXT

This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

Changes in biochemical markers following a spinal manipulation - a systematic review update

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to update the current level of evidence for spinal manipulation in influencing various biochemical markers in healthy and/or symptomatic population.

METHODS

This is a systematic review update. Various databases were searched (inception till May 2023) and fifteen trials (737 participants) that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Two authors independently screened, extracted and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. Outcome measure data were synthesized using standard mean differences and meta-analysis for the primary outcome (biochemical markers). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome of interest.

RESULTS

There was low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation influenced various biochemical markers (not pooled). There was low-quality evidence of significant difference that spinal manipulation is better (SMD -0.42, 95% CI - 0.74 to -0.1) than control in eliciting changes in cortisol levels immediately after intervention. Low-quality evidence further indicated (not pooled) that spinal manipulation can influence inflammatory markers such as interleukins levels post-intervention. There was also very low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation does not influence substance-P, neurotensin, oxytocin, orexin-A, testosterone and epinephrine/nor-epinephrine.

CONCLUSION

Spinal manipulation may influence inflammatory and cortisol post-intervention. However, the wider prediction intervals in most outcome measures point to the need for future research to clarify and establish the clinical relevance of these changes.

Instrument Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization versus Integrated Neuromuscular Inhibition Technique in Nonspecific Chronic Neck Pain: Single-blinding Randomized Trial

Objective

This study aimed to compare the effects of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) vs integrated neuromuscular inhibition technique (INIT) on pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, neck disability, and electrophysiological properties in nonspecific chronic neck pain.

Methods

We performed a pre-post prospective randomized controlled trial on 90 participants with nonspecific chronic neck pain. The participants were chosen randomly from physical therapy out-patient clinics in the Giza governorate and allocated randomly by permuted block to the following 3 groups: Group A received INIT on the upper trapezius in addition to supervised traditional therapy (STT) as hot pack, stretching and strengthening exercises, Group B received IASTM on the upper trapezius in addition to STT, and Group C received STT only. Treatment was 3 times per week for 4 weeks. Pain intensity by visual analog scale (VAS), pressure pain threshold (PPT) by commander algometer, neck disability by Arabic Neck Disability Index (ANDI), and electrophysiological properties in the form of muscle amplitude by root mean square (RMS), and fatigue by median frequency (MDF) were measured at baseline and after 4 weeks.

Results

In the within-group analysis, there was a statistically significant decrease in VAS, ANDI, and RMS% values within each group with favor to INIT. In PPT and MDF, there was a significant increase within each group with regard to INIT as P value <.05. In the between-group analysis at posttreatment, the results reported a statistically significant difference between INIT and STT, and also between IASTM and STT in all variables. Between INIT and IASTM, there was no statistically significant difference in VAS and NDI, but there was a statistically significant difference in PPT, RMS%, and MDF. The post hoc test reported improvement in all variables in all groups, with more favor to the INIT group in PPT and electrophysiological properties only.

Conclusion

In this study, we found no statistically significant differences between INIT and IASTM in VAS and ANDI posttreatment, but there were differences between INIT and STT group and IASTM and STT group.

Immediate systemic neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisation and manipulation in people with non-specific neck pain: a randomised placebo-controlled trial

Spinal mobilisation/manipulation is a common intervention for spinal pain, yet the working mechanisms are largely unknown. A randomised placebo-controlled trial was conducted to (1) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisation/manipulation and placebo spinal mobilisation/manipulation; (2) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses of those with a good outcome with those of a poor outcome following spinal mobilisation/manipulation; and (3) explore the association between neuroimmune responses and pain reduction. One hundred patients were randomly allocated to spinal mobilisation/manipulation or a placebo mobilisation/manipulation. Primary outcomes were whole blood in-vitro evoked released concentrations of IL-1β and TNF-α measured 10 min and 2 h after the intervention. Immediate effects were studied because successful mobilisation/manipulation is often associated with immediate pain reduction, and immediate neuroimmune responses are less affected by potential confounders than long-term responses. Secondary outcomes included multiple systemic inflammatory marker concentrations, phenotypic analysis of white blood cells and clinical outcomes. Outcomes were compared between the experimental and placebo group, and between people with a good and poor outcome in the experimental group. Estimates of intervention effects were based on intention-to-treat analyses, by using linear mixed-effect models. Although there was a substantial difference in pain reduction between groups (mean (SD) difference visual analogue scale: 30 (21) mm at 10 min and 32 (21) mm at 2 h (p < 0.001) in favour of mobilisation/manipulation, there were no differences in primary outcomes between groups or between people with a good and poor outcome (p ≥ 0.10). In conclusion, possible neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisations/manipulation cannot be identified at a systemic level. Future research may focus on longer treatment duration and more localised neuroimmune responses.

Therapeutic Alliance as Active Inference: The Role of Therapeutic Touch and Biobehavioural Synchrony in Musculoskeletal Care

Touch is recognised as crucial for survival, fostering cooperative communication, accelerating recovery, reducing hospital stays, and promoting overall wellness and the therapeutic alliance. In this hypothesis and theory paper, we present an entwined model that combines touch for alignment and active inference to explain how the brain develops "priors" necessary for the health care provider to engage with the patient effectively. We appeal to active inference to explain the empirically integrative neurophysiological and behavioural mechanisms that underwrite synchronous relationships through touch. Specifically, we offer a formal framework for understanding - and explaining - the role of therapeutic touch and hands-on care in developing a therapeutic alliance and synchrony between health care providers and their patients in musculoskeletal care. We first review the crucial importance of therapeutic touch and its clinical role in facilitating the formation of a solid therapeutic alliance and in regulating allostasis. We then consider how touch is used clinically - to promote cooperative communication, demonstrate empathy, overcome uncertainty, and infer the mental states of others - through the lens of active inference. We conclude that touch plays a crucial role in achieving successful clinical outcomes and adapting previous priors to create intertwined beliefs. The ensuing framework may help healthcare providers in the field of musculoskeletal care to use hands-on care to strengthen the therapeutic alliance, minimise prediction errors (a.k.a., free energy), and thereby promote recovery from physical and psychological impairments.

Effects of joint and nerve mobilisation on neuroimmune responses in animals and humans with neuromusculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

There is evidence that joint and nerve mobilisations compared with sham or no intervention positively influence various neuroimmune responses in animal and human neuromusculoskeletal conditions.

Several animal and human studies revealed that joint and nerve mobilisations positively influence neuroimmune responses in neuromusculoskeletal conditions. However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has been performed. Therefore, this study aimed to synthesize the effects of joint and nerve mobilisation compared with sham or no intervention on neuroimmune responses in animals and humans with neuromusculoskeletal conditions. Four electronic databases were searched for controlled trials. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and graded the certainty of the evidence. Where possible, meta-analyses using random effects models were used to pool the results. Preliminary evidence from 13 animal studies report neuroimmune responses after joint and nerve mobilisations. In neuropathic pain models, meta-analysis revealed decreased spinal cord levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein, dorsal root ganglion levels of interleukin-1β, number of dorsal root ganglion nonneuronal cells, and increased spinal cord interleukin-10 levels. The 5 included human studies showed mixed effects of spinal manipulation on salivary/serum cortisol levels in people with spinal pain, and no significant effects on serum β-endorphin or interleukin-1β levels in people with spinal pain. There is evidence that joint and nerve mobilisations positively influence various neuroimmune responses. However, as most findings are based on single studies, the certainty of the evidence is low to very low. Further studies are needed.

The Potential Mechanisms of High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude, Controlled Vertebral Thrusts on Neuroimmune Function: A Narrative Review

The current COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the need to find healthcare solutions that boost or support immunity. There is some evidence that high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) controlled vertebral thrusts have the potential to modulate immune mediators. However, the mechanisms of the link between HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts and neuroimmune function and the associated potential clinical implications are less clear. This review aims to elucidate the underlying mechanisms that can explain the HVLA controlled vertebral thrust--neuroimmune link and discuss what this link implies for clinical practice and future research needs. A search for relevant articles published up until April 2021 was undertaken. Twenty-three published papers were found that explored the impact of HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts on neuroimmune markers, of which eighteen found a significant effect. These basic science studies show that HVLA controlled vertebral thrust influence the levels of immune mediators in the body, including neuropeptides, inflammatory markers, and endocrine markers. This narravtive review discusses the most likely mechanisms for how HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts could impact these immune markers. The mechanisms are most likely due to the known changes in proprioceptive processing that occur within the central nervous system (CNS), in particular within the prefrontal cortex, following HVLA spinal thrusts. The prefrontal cortex is involved in the regulation of the autonomic nervous system, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the immune system. Bi-directional neuro-immune interactions are affected by emotional or pain-related stress. Stress-induced sympathetic nervous system activity also alters vertebral motor control. Therefore, there are biologically plausible direct and indirect mechanisms that link HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts to the immune system, suggesting HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts have the potential to modulate immune function. However, it is not yet known whether HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts have a clinically relevant impact on immunity. Further research is needed to explore the clinical impact of HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts on immune function.

Neurophysiological mechanisms of chiropractic spinal manipulation for spine pain

Together, neck pain and back pain are the first cause of disability worldwide, accounting for more than 10% of the total years lived with disability. In this context, chiropractic care provides a safe and effective option for the management of a large proportion of these patients. Chiropractic is a healthcare profession mainly focused on the spine and the treatment of spinal disorders, including spine pain. Basic studies have examined the influence of chiropractic spinal manipulation (SM) on a variety of peripheral, spinal and supraspinal mechanisms involved in spine pain. While spinal cord mechanisms of pain inhibition contribute at least partly to the pain-relieving effects of chiropractic treatments, the evidence is weaker regarding peripheral and supraspinal mechanisms, which are important components of acute and chronic pain. This narrative review highlights the most relevant mechanisms of pain relief by SM and provides a perspective for future research on SM and spine pain, including the validation of placebo interventions that control for placebo effects and other non-specific effects that may be induced by SM. SIGNIFICANCE: Spinal manipulation inhibits back and neck pain partly through spinal segmental mechanisms and potentially through peripheral mechanisms regulating inflammatory responses. Other mechanisms remain to be clarified. Controls and placebo interventions need to be improved in order to clarify the contribution of specific and non-specific effects to pain relief by spinal manipulative therapy.

Assessment of Studies Evaluating Spinal Manipulative Therapy and Infectious Disease and Immune System Outcomes: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Claims that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) can improve immune function have increased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic and may have contributed to the rapid spread of both accurate and inaccurate information (referred to as an infodemic by the World Health Organization).

OBJECTIVE

To identify, appraise, and synthesize the scientific literature on the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT in preventing the development of infectious disease or improving disease-specific outcomes in patients with infectious disease and to examine the association between SMT and selected immunological, endocrine, and other physiological biomarkers.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A literature search of MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase was conducted from inception to April 15, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were included. Eligible studies were critically appraised, and evidence with high and acceptable quality was synthesized using the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guideline.

FINDINGS

A total of 2593 records were retrieved; after exclusions, 50 full-text articles were screened, and 16 articles reporting the findings of 13 studies comprising 795 participants were critically appraised. The literature search found no clinical studies that investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT in preventing the development of infectious disease or improving disease-specific outcomes among patients with infectious disease. Eight articles reporting the results of 6 high- and acceptable-quality RCTs comprising 529 participants investigated the effect of SMT on biomarkers. Spinal manipulative therapy was not associated with changes in lymphocyte levels or physiological markers among patients with low back pain or participants who were asymptomatic compared with sham manipulation, a lecture series, and venipuncture control groups. Spinal manipulative therapy was associated with short-term changes in selected immunological biomarkers among asymptomatic participants compared with sham manipulation, a lecture series, and venipuncture control groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review of 13 studies, no clinical evidence was found to support or refute claims that SMT was efficacious or effective in changing immune system outcomes. Although there were limited preliminary data from basic scientific studies suggesting that SMT may be associated with short-term changes in immunological and endocrine biomarkers, the clinical relevance of these findings is unknown. Given the lack of evidence that SMT is associated with the prevention of infectious diseases or improvements in immune function, further studies should be completed before claims of efficacy or effectiveness are made.

Management of Acute Pain From Non-Low Back, Musculoskeletal Injuries : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.

PURPOSE

To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.

DATA EXTRACTION

Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence).

LIMITATIONS

Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited.

CONCLUSION

Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).

Short-term effects of spinal thrust joint manipulation on postural sway in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Our aim was to compare the efficacy of spinal manipulation of the upper cervical spine (C1-C2) on postural sway in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain with the application of a combination of cervical (C3-C4), cervicothoracic (C7-T1) and thoracic spine (T5-T6) thrust joint manipulation.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-six (n = 186) individuals with chronic mechanical neck pain were randomised to receive an upper cervical spine manipulation (n = 93) or three different spinal manipulation techniques applied to the cervical spine, cervicothoracic joint and thoracic spine (n = 93). Measures included the assessment of stabilometric parameters using the Medicapteurs S-Plate platform. Secondarily, neck pain was analysed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale.

RESULTS

We observe a decrease in the length of the centre of pressure path, average speed, medio-lateral and antero-posterior displacement with statistically significant results (p < 0.05) in the upper cervical manipulation group. Both interventions are equally effective in reducing neck pain after fifteen days (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The application of upper cervical thrust joint manipulation is more effective in improving stabilometric parameters in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain. Trial registration: The study was registered in the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (no. ACTRN12619000546156).Implications for rehabilitationPatients who suffer from neck pain exhibit increased postural sway than asymptomatic subjects.Both spinal manipulation treatments applied in this study are equally effective in reducing neck pain.Spinal manipulation treatment on the upper cervical spine improves postural stability parameters.

The Effects Induced by Spinal Manipulative Therapy on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

Background and Objectives: Spinal manipulations are interventions widely used by different healthcare professionals for the management of musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. While previous theoretical principles focused predominantly on biomechanical accounts, recent models propose that the observed pain modulatory effects of this form of manual therapy may be the result of more complex mechanisms. It has been suggested that other phenomena like neurophysiological responses and the activation of the immune-endocrine system may explain variability in pain inhibition after the administration of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the available evidence supporting the biological plausibility of high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust (HVLAT) on the immune-endocrine system. Materials and Methods: Narrative critical review. An electronic search on MEDLINE, ProQUEST, and Google Scholar followed by a hand and "snowballing" search were conducted to find relevant articles. Studies were included if they evaluated the effects of HVLAT on participants' biomarkers Results: The electronic search retrieved 13 relevant articles and two themes of discussion were developed. Nine studies investigated the effects of SMT on cortisol levels and five of them were conducted on symptomatic populations. Four studies examined the effects of SMT on the immune system and all of them were conducted on healthy individuals. Conclusions: Although spinal manipulations seem to trigger the activation of the neuroimmunoendocrine system, the evidence supporting a biological account for the application of HVLAT in clinical practice is mixed and conflicting. Further research on subjects with spinal MSK conditions with larger sample sizes are needed to obtain more insights about the biological effects of spinal manipulative therapy.