The effect of a single spinal manipulation on cardiovascular autonomic activity and the relationship to pressure pain threshold: a randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled trial

Reduction of Chronic Primary Low Back Pain by Spinal Manipulative Therapy is Accompanied by Decreases in Segmental Mechanical Hyperalgesia and Pain Catastrophizing: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Dual-blind Mixed Experimental Trial

Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) refers to low back pain that persists over 3 months, that cannot be explained by another chronic condition, and that is associated with emotional distress and disability. Previous studies have shown that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is effective in relieving CPLBP, but the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. This randomized placebo-controlled dual-blind mixed experimental trial (NCT05162924) aimed to investigate the efficacy of SMT to improve CPLBP and its underlying mechanisms. Ninety-eight individuals with CPLBP and 49 controls were recruited. Individuals with CPLBP received SMT (n = 49) or a control intervention (n = 49), 12 times over 4 weeks. The primary outcomes were CPLBP intensity (0-100 on a numerical rating scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes included pressure pain thresholds in 4 body regions, pain catastrophizing, Central Sensitization Inventory, depressive symptoms, and anxiety scores. Individuals with CPLBP showed widespread mechanical hyperalgesia (P < .001) and higher scores for all questionnaires (P < .001). SMT reduced pain intensity compared with the control intervention (mean difference: -11.7 [95% confidence interval, -11.0 to -12.5], P = .01), but not disability (P = .5). Similar mild to moderate adverse events were reported in both groups. Mechanical hyperalgesia at the manipulated segment was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05). Pain catastrophizing was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05), but this effect was not significant after accounting for changes in clinical pain. Although the reduction of segmental mechanical hyperalgesia likely contributes to the clinical benefits of SMT, the role of pain catastrophizing remains to be clarified. PERSPECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial found that 12 sessions of SMT yield greater relief of CPLBP than a control intervention. These clinical effects were independent of expectations, and accompanied by an attenuation of hyperalgesia in the targeted segment and a modulation of pain catastrophizing.

Vertebral Subluxation and Systems Biology: An Integrative Review Exploring the Salutogenic Influence of Chiropractic Care on the Neuroendocrine-Immune System

In this paper we synthesize an expansive body of literature examining the multifaceted influence of chiropractic care on processes within and modulators of the neuroendocrine-immune (NEI) system, for the purpose of generating an inductive hypothesis regarding the potential impacts of chiropractic care on integrated physiology. Taking a broad, interdisciplinary, and integrative view of two decades of research-documented outcomes of chiropractic care, inclusive of reports ranging from systematic and meta-analysis and randomized and observational trials to case and cohort studies, this review encapsulates a rigorous analysis of research and suggests the appropriateness of a more integrative perspective on the impact of chiropractic care on systemic physiology. A novel perspective on the salutogenic, health-promoting effects of chiropractic adjustment is presented, focused on the improvement of physical indicators of well-being and adaptability such as blood pressure, heart rate variability, and sleep, potential benefits that may be facilitated through multiple neurologically mediated pathways. Our findings support the biological plausibility of complex benefits from chiropractic intervention that is not limited to simple neuromusculoskeletal outcomes and open new avenues for future research, specifically the exploration and mapping of the precise neural pathways and networks influenced by chiropractic adjustment.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation in influencing the autonomic nervous system - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation (SM) has been hypothesized to influence the autonomic nervous system (ANS). Further, it has been proposed that the effects may vary depending on the segment manipulated. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the current level of evidence for SM in influencing the ANS in healthy and/or symptomatic population.

METHODS

Various databases (n = 8) were searched (inception till May 2023) and 14 trials (n = 618 participants) were included in the review. Two authors independently screened, extracted and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. The data were synthesized using standard mean differences and meta-analysis for the primary outcome measures. 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

Overall, there was low quality evidence that SM did not influence any measure of ANS including heart rate variability (HRV), oxy-hemoglobin, blood pressure, epinephrine and nor-epinephrine. However, there was low quality evidence that cervical spine manipulation may influence high frequency parameter of HRV, indicating its influence on the parasympathetic nervous system.

CONCLUSION

When compared with control or sham interventions, SM did not alter the ANS. Due to invalid methodologies and the low quality of included studies, findings must be interpreted with great caution. Future studies are needed which employ rigorous data collection processes to verify the true physiological implications of SM on ANS.

[Manual spinal therapy techniques to stimulate the autonomic nervous system: a scoping review]

BACKGROUND

Physical interventions or manual therapeutic techniques (MTTe) such as mobilisation, manipulation or soft tissue techniques not only have an influence on the target tissue with improvement of metabolism or reduction of hypertonic muscles. They are also used for balance regulation in central nervous changes of the autonomic nervous system (ANS). To date, there is a lack of empirical evidence on impact mechanisms and target locations of MTTe on the ANS. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the evidence on the application of MTTe at diverse levels of the spine with a view to the ANS.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted on CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Osteopathic Research Web, PEDro and PubMed. The scope and content of the literature were documented. The results of the included and referenced studies were summarised in a narrative approach with the focus being on the most significant clinical aspects.

RESULTS

MTTe was described as manipulations, mobilisations, myofascial techniques and cervical traction. In 27 out of 35 studies, therapeutic treatments were carried out on healthy volunteers. Ten studies analysed immediate effects in patients, while two studies were designed as longitudinal studies in patients with hypertension. Over a period of four to eight weeks, the frequency of intervention was between one and three MTTe sessions a week.

CONCLUSION

The study results proved to be heterogeneous. For this reason, it is not possible to draw definitive, explicit and generally valid statements regarding the type and intensity as well as the segmental level at which MTTe should be applied in order to trigger specific positive ANS response mechanisms. Consequently, longitudinal studies with follow-up are recommended for future studies. In addition, comprehensive effects of MTTe should be evaluated in groups of patients with different characteristics.

Review of effects of spinal manipulative therapy on neurological symptoms

BACKGROUND

Neurological disorders are the leading cause of disability in the world. Neurological symptoms significantly affect the well-being of the individual. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a complementary method often used for people with neurological disorders.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review the existing literature on the effects of SMT on common clinical symptoms of neurologic disorders and the quality of life.

METHODS

Narrative review was conducted through the literature published between January 2000 and April 2020 in English. The search was performed across four databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature. We used combinations of keywords related to SMT, neurological symptoms, and quality of life. Studies on both symptomatic and asymptomatic populations of different ages were included.

RESULTS

35 articles were selected. Evidence for the administration of SMT for neurological symptoms is insufficient and sparse. Most studies focused on the effects of SMT on pain, revealing its benefits for spinal pain. SMT may increase strength in asymptomatic people and populations with spinal pain and stroke. SMT was reported to affect spasticity, muscle stiffness, motor function, autonomic function, and balance problems, but these studies were limited in number to make conclusions. An important finding was the positive influence of SMT on the quality of life in people with spinal pain, balance impairments, and cerebral palsy.

CONCLUSION

SMT may be beneficial for the symptomatic treatment of neurological disorders. SMT can positively affect the quality of life. However, limited evidence is available, and further high-quality research is required.

Are changes in pain associated with changes in heart rate variability in patients treated for recurrent or persistent neck pain?

BACKGROUND

Persistent or recurrent neck pain is associated with perturbations in the autonomic nervous system balance, and nociceptive stimulation has been seen to influence this balance. However, very few prospective studies have addressed the extent to which changes in pain associate with changes in autonomic cardiac regulation. Therefore, we investigated if changes in pain vary with changes in heart rate variability in a cohort of patients treated for persistent or recurrent neck pain.

METHOD

This analysis is based on data from a randomized controlled trial in which participants were given home stretching exercises with or without spinal manipulative therapy for two weeks. As the effectiveness of the intervention (home stretching exercises and spinal manipulative therapy) was found to be equal to the control (home stretching exercises alone), all 127 participants were studied as one cohort in this analysis. During the intervention, pain levels were recorded using daily text messages, and heart rate variability was measured in the clinics three times over two weeks. Two approaches were used to classify patients based on changes in pain intensity: 1) Clinically important changes in pain were categorized as either "improved" or "not improved" and, 2) Pain development was measured using pain trajectories, constructed in a data driven approach. The association of pain categories and trajectories with changes in heart rate variability indices over time were then analysed using linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Heart rate variability did not differ significantly between improved and not-improved patients, nor were there any associations with the different pain trajectories.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, changes in pain after home stretching exercises with or without spinal manipulative therapy over two weeks were not significantly associated with changes in heart rate variability for patients with persistent or recurrent neck pain. Future studies should rely on more frequent measurements of HRV during longer treatment periods.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number: NCT03576846.

Who are the chiropractic students favouring a limitless scope of practice? Exploring the relationship with personality, magical thinking, and academic achievement

Introduction

Some chiropractors seem to have an inflated belief in the powers of spinal manipulation (SMT), for example aiming at preventing future spinal degeneration and health problems, activities that are without supporting evidence. Non-evidenced health beliefs have been shown to be associated with a tendency toward magical thinking. Holding such beliefs about SMT is associated with a limitless scope of practice (LLSoP). Recent studies have shown that “chiropractic conservatism” (ChiroCon) is also associated with such approaches. We wanted to understand ChiroCon and these attitudes toward SMT by exploring three different factors: intolerance to uncertainty, academic achievement, and tendency toward magical thinking and how they relate to ChiroCon and LLSoP.

Method

A cross-sectional survey of 243 chiropractic students from an Australian chiropractic program was conducted in May 2020. Students answered a questionnaire involving a patient case-scenario for LLSoP, levels of ChiroCon, validated questionnaires on (i) Intolerance of uncertainty, (ii) Academic achievement, and (iii) Magical thinking. LLSoP was defined as wanting to treat with SMT a 5-year-old asymptomatic child for future (i) Musculoskeletal (MSK) problems and/or (ii) Non-musculoskeletal diseases. Logistic regression models were used to confirm if there was an association between ChiroCon and LLSoP and to explore associations between LLSoP and (i) Intolerance of uncertainty, (ii) Academic achievement, and (iii) Magical thinking. We repeated the same analyses using ChiroCon as the outcome variable.

Results

We confirmed that chiropractic students in the more extreme ChiroCon group were more likely to want to prevent future spinal disorders in an asymptomatic 5-year-old child as compared to those with lower levels (OR = 3.9, (95%CI 1.97–7.72). This was also the case for the prevention of future diseases in the same child (OR = 6.9, (95%CI 3.11–15.06). Of the three predictor variables, magical belief was positively associated with both ChiroCon and LLSoP.

Conclusion

Not surprisingly, ChiroCon is closely related to LLSoP and both were linked to magical thinking. Therefore, the questionnaire ‘Magical Health Beliefs’ could be a useful instrument to screen future chiropractic students to prevent a mismatch between student and institution. Depending on the outlook of the school, some schools would welcome these students, whereas other institutions would want to avoid them in their education program.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-022-00440-6.

Mitigating Bias in the Measurement of Heart Rate Variability in Physiological Studies of Spinal Manipulation: A Comparison Between Authentic and Sham Manipulation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify sources and strategies for the mitigation of bias in studies of spinal manipulation and heart rate variability.

METHODS

A small-scale study compared the effects of a single session of sham and authentic cervical manipulation on heart rate variability as measured by power spectrum analysis. The participants were a sample of 31 healthy young students from the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, randomized into 2 study arms. The effectiveness of blinding was evaluated, and 2 alternative methods of data analysis were explored to mitigate risk of bias. Following execution of the study, the stages of implementation and data processing were scored against version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials for risk of bias.

RESULTS

The risk of bias arising from (1) the randomization process, (2) missing outcome data, and (3) selection of reported results was judged to be low. Risk of bias in (1) deviations from intended interventions (particularly due to the failure of masking) and (2) the measurement of the outcome, for example, through cleaning of the data, were judged to be high.

CONCLUSION

The use of power spectrum analysis of heart rate variability based on 5-minute recordings of echocardiogram pre-and post-intervention contained multiple sources of bias that were challenging to mitigate. Based upon these findings, power spectrum analysis of heart rate variability using these parameters may be ill-suited to the study of physiological effects of spinal manipulative therapy.

Heart Rate Variability and Pain: A Systematic Review

Background and Objective: Heart rate variability (HRV) as an index of the autonomic nervous system appears to be related to reactivity to experimental pain stimuli. HRV could better explain the contributions of sympathetic and parasympathetic activity response to nociceptive stimulation. The aim of this study was to systematically review and synthesize the current evidence on HRV in relation to the experience of pain in experimental tasks. Databases and Data Treatment: Studies indexed in the PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, WebOfScience, and Scopus databases were reviewed for eligibility. Studies on the autonomic response (i.e., HRV) to experimentally induced pain in healthy adults were included. Different methods of pain induction were considered (e.g., thermal, pressure, and electrical). Data were synthesized considering the association between HRV and both pain induction and subjective measures of pain. Results: Seventy-one studies were included. The results underline significant change in both the sympathetic and parasympathetic autonomic nervous systems during the painful stimulation independent of the pain induction method. The autonomic reaction to pain could be affected by several factors, such as sex, age, body mass index, breathing patterns, the intensity of the stimulation, and the affective state. Moreover, an association between the autonomic nervous system and the subjective experience of pain was found. Higher parasympathetic activity was associated with better self-regulation capacities and, accordingly, a higher pain inhibition capacity. Conclusions: HRV appears to be a helpful marker to evaluate nociceptive response in experimentally induced pain. Future studies are also needed in clinical samples to understand better the interindividual changes of autonomic response due to pain stimuli.

Segmental Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation Does not Reduce Pain Amplification and the Associated Pain-Related Brain Activity in a Capsaicin-Heat Pain Model

Musculoskeletal injuries lead to sensitization of nociceptors and primary hyperalgesia (hypersensitivity to painful stimuli). This occurs with back injuries, which are associated with acute pain and increased pain sensitivity at the site of injury. In some cases, back pain persists and leads to central sensitization and chronic pain. Thus, reducing primary hyperalgesia to prevent central sensitization may limit the transition from acute to chronic back pain. It has been shown that spinal manipulation (SM) reduces experimental and clinical pain, but the effect of SM on primary hyperalgesia and hypersensitivity to painful stimuli remains unclear. The goal of the present study was to investigate the effect of SM on pain hypersensitivity using a capsaicin-heat pain model. Laser stimulation was used to evoke heat pain and the associated brain activity, which were measured to assess their modulation by SM. Eighty healthy participants were recruited and randomly assigned to one of the four experimental groups: inert cream and no intervention; capsaicin cream and no intervention; capsaicin cream and SM at T7; capsaicin cream and placebo. Inert or capsaicin cream (1%) was applied to the T9 area. SM or placebo were performed 25 min after cream application. A series of laser stimuli were delivered on the area of cream application (1) before cream application, (2) after cream application but before SM or placebo, and (3) after SM or placebo. Capsaicin cream induced a significant increase in laser pain (p < 0.001) and laser-evoked potential amplitude (p < 0.001). However, SM did not decrease the amplification of laser pain or laser-evoked potentials by capsaicin. These results indicate that segmental SM does not reduce pain hypersensitivity and the associated pain-related brain activity in a capsaicin-heat pain model.

The analgesic effect of joint mobilization and manipulation in tendinopathy: a narrative review

Objective: To summarize the available literature with regards to the potential analgesic effect and mechanism of joint mobilization and manipulation in tendinopathy. Results: The effect of these techniques in rotator cuff tendinopathy and lateral elbow tendinopathy, applied alone, compared to a placebo intervention or along with other interventions has been reported in some randomized controlled trials which have been scrutinized in systematic reviews. Due to the small randomized controlled trials and other methodological limitations of the evidence base, including short-term follow-ups, small sample size and lack of homogenous samples further studies are needed. Literature in other tendinopathies such as medial elbow tendinopathy, de Quervain's disease and Achilles tendinopathy is limited since the analgesic effect of these techniques has been identified in few case series and reports. Therefore, the low methodological quality renders caution in the generalization of findings in clinical practice. Studies on the analgesic mechanism of these techniques highlight the activation of the descending inhibitory pain mechanism and sympathoexcitation although this area needs further investigation. Conclusion: Study suggests that joint mobilization and manipulation may be a potential contributor in the management of tendinopathy as a pre-conditioning process prior to formal exercise loading rehabilitation or other proven effective treatment approaches.

Linear and non-linear analysis of heart rate variability in HIV-positive patients on two different antiretroviral therapy regimens

Background

Cardiac autonomic dysfunction in HIV+ patients on different antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens has been described. We aimed to characterize parameters of heart rate variability (HRV) and correlate with different classes of ART in HIV+ patients in three experimental conditions: rest, cold face, and tilt tests.

Methods

Cross-sectional study with three groups of age- and gender-matched individuals: group 1, 44 HIV+ patients undergoing combination therapy, with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) and one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI); group 2, 42 HIV+ patients using two NRTI and protease inhibitors (PI’s); and group 3, 35 healthy volunteers with negative HIV serology (control group). Autonomic function at rest and during cold face- and tilt-tests was assessed through computerized analysis of HRV, via quantification of time- and frequency domains by linear and non-linear parameters in the three groups.

Results

Anthropometric and clinical parameters were similar between both HIV groups, except CD4+ T lymphocytes, which were significantly lower in group 2 (p = 0.039). At baseline, time-domain linear HRV parameters, RMSSD and pNN50, and the correlation dimension, a non-linear HRV parameter (p < 0.001; p = 0.018; p = 0.019, respectively), as well as response of RMSSD to cold face test were also lower in the HIV+ group than in the control individuals (p < 0.001), while no differences among groups were detected in HRV parameters during the tilt test.

Conclusions

Despite ART regimens, HIV+ patients presented lower cardiac vagal modulation than controls, whereas no difference was observed among the HIV groups, suggesting that higher cardiovascular risk linked to PIs may be associated with factors other than autonomic dysfunction.

One Session of Spinal Manipulation Improves the Cardiac Autonomic Control in Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

Three-arm, parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled, assessor-blinded trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the immediate effect of manual therapy at the upper thoracic spine on the cardiovascular autonomic control of patients with musculoskeletal pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Musculoskeletal pain increases the risk of cardiovascular events. Thus, manual therapy applied to the upper thoracic region is likely efficient to improve the cardiac autonomic control.

METHODS

The study included 59 patients with musculoskeletal pain enrolled at an outpatient clinic. Participants were randomly assigned to spinal manipulation (n = 19), myofascial manipulation (n = 20), or placebo (n = 20) administered to the upper thoracic region. Resting heart rate variability provided indexes of the cardiac autonomic control, and the blood pressure response to the cold pressor test as a proxy of the sympathetic responsiveness to a stressor stimulus.

RESULTS

Groups were similar for baseline variables except for blood pressure. Two-way repeated-measures one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed that only spinal manipulation induced immediate increase of the square root of the mean squared differences of successive RR intervals (RMSSD), absolute (ms2), and normalized units (n.u.) of the high-frequency power (HF) as compared with pre-intervention evaluation, indicating an improvement in the parasympathetic activity to the heart. Normalized units of low-frequency power (LF) and the LF/HF ratio reduced after the spinal manipulation solely, suggesting a reduction of the sympathetic activity to the heart. There were no significant differences in the blood pressure responsiveness among the three treatments. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSION

In patients with musculoskeletal pain, spinal manipulation on the upper thoracic spine led to an immediate improvement in the resting cardiac autonomic control without an effect on the blood pressure responsiveness to a sympathoexcitatory stimulus. Myofascial manipulation or placebo did not change cardiovascular autonomic control.Level of Evidence: 2.

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.

The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature

Background

A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial.

Objectives

We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Global summit

The Global Summit took place on September 14–15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence.

Systematic review of the literature

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus.

Results

We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report.

Conclusion

Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-021-00362-9.

What is the effect of spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold in young, asymptomatic subjects? A randomized placebo-controlled trial, with a cross-over design

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation (SM) has been shown to have an effect on the pressure pain threshold (PPT) in asymptomatic subjects, but SM has never been compared in studies on this topic to a validated sham procedure. We investigated the effect of SM on the PPT when measured i) in the area of intervention and ii) in an area remote from the intervention. In addition, we measured the size and duration of the effect.

METHOD

In a randomized cross-over trial, 50 asymptomatic chiropractic students had their PPT measured at baseline, immediately after and every 12 min after intervention, over a period of 45 min, comparing values after SM and a previously validated sham. The trial was conducted during two sessions, separated by 48 h. PPT was measured both regionally and remotely from the 'treated' thoracic segment. Blinding of study subjects was tested with a post-intervention questionnaire. We used mixed linear regression with the baseline value and time as co-variates. If a significant difference were found between groups, then an effect size would be calculated using Cohen's d or Hedge's h coefficient. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Study subjects had been successfully blinded. No statistically significant differences were found between SM and sham estimates, at any time or anatomical location.

CONCLUSION

When compared to a valid sham procedure and with successfully blinded subjects, there is no regional or remote effect of spinal manipulation of the thoracic spine on the pressure pain threshold in a young pain-free population.