Elsevier

Neurologic Clinics

Volume 17, Issue 1, 1 February 1999, Pages 91-111
Neurologic Clinics

SPINAL MANIPULATION: Current State of Research and Its Indications

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0733-8619(05)70116-XGet rights and content

Section snippets

THEORIES ON THE MECHANISM OF SPINAL MANIPULATION

There are several, although not mutually exclusive, theories on what constitutes the underlying mechanism of spinal manipulation. The primary premise is that spinal manipulation results in improved spinal mobility.47 Impaired motion of synovial joints can have detrimental effects on the integrity of the joint cartilage and lead to premature degenerative changes.2, 17 Decreased spinal motion has been shown to have an adverse effect40 and increased spinal motion an enhancing effect on the

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The following review of the literature is based in part on a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), reported in detail elsewhere and conducted by Bronfort et al21 on SMT or MOB for neck and back pain. This review used a methodology from the “best evidence” synthesis method first described by Slavin.89 In this approach it is considered that the best evidence in any field comes from studies with the highest internal and external validity that use well specified a priori inclusion

Side Effects and Complications

In two recent systematic reviews of all of the published RCTs on the efficacy of spinal manipulation for a variety of conditions involving approximately 2600 patients, 19, 21 transient side effects have been reported, but no serious complications. In evaluating any therapy weighing the potential risks against the potential benefits is a crucial issue. The adverse reactions associated with spinal manipulation can be divided into three categories. The first category consists of relatively common

SUMMARY AND INDICATIONS

From the most recent and comprehensive systematic reviews, there is moderate evidence of short-term efficacy for SMT in the treatment of acute LBP and for SMT combined with MOB for chronic LBP. This moderate evidence of efficacy rests on a very small percentage of the conducted RCTs. Although available RCTs and prospective studies show promising results, there is insufficient data available to draw conclusions regarding the short-term efficacy of SMT for the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (107)

  • R. Anderson et al.

    A meta-analysis of clinical trials of spinal manipulation

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther

    (1992)
  • Z. Arkuszewski

    The efficacy of manual treatment in low back pain: A clinical trial

    Manual Medicine

    (1986)
  • W.J. Assendelft et al.

    Does the goose really lay golden eggs?. A methodological review of Workmen's Compensation studies

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther

    (1993)
  • W.J. Assendelft et al.

    Effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy in the treatment of low back pain: A critical discussion of the British Randomized Clinical Trial

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther

    (1991)
  • W.J. Assendelft et al.

    Complications of spinal manipulation: A comprehensive review of the literature

    J Fam Pract

    (1996)
  • W.J. Assendelft et al.

    The effectiveness of chiropractic for treatment of low back pain: An update and attempt at statistical pooling

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther

    (1996)
  • W.J. Assendelft et al.

    The efficacy of chiropractic manipulation for back pain: Blinded review of relevant randomized clinical trials

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther

    (1992)
  • M. Bergquist-Ullman et al.

    Acute low back pain in industry. A controlled prospective study with special reference to therapy and confounding factors

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (1977)
  • S. Bigos et al.

    Acute low back problems in adults: Assessment and treatment

    Clinical Practice Guideline Number 14

    (1994)
  • S. Blomberg et al.

    Manual therapy with steroid injections—a new approach to treatment of low back pain. A controlled multicenter trial with an evaluation by orthopedic surgeons

    Spine

    (1994)
  • S. Blomberg et al.

    A controlled, multicentre trial of manual therapy in low-back pain. Initial status, sick-leave and pain score during follow-up

    Scand J Prim Health Care

    (1992)
  • S. Blomberg et al.

    A randomized study of manual therapy with steroid injections in low-back pain. Telephone interview follow-up of pain, disability, recovery and drug consumption

    Eur Spine J

    (1994)
  • J. Borkan et al.

    Guidelines for the treatment of low back pain in primary care

    (1995)
  • W.M. Bortz

    The disuse syndrome

    West J Med

    (1984)
  • G. Bronfort

    Chiropractic versus general medical treatment of low back pain: A small scale controlled clinical trial

    Am J Chiropractic Med

    (1989)
  • G. Bronfort et al.

    Efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy for headache and conditions other than spinal related pain: A systematic review and best evidence synthesis

  • G. Bronfort et al.

    Trunk exercise combined with spinal manipulative or NSAID therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized, observer-blinded clinical trial

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther

    (1996)
  • G. Bronfort et al.

    Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back and neck pain: A systematic review and best evidence synthesis

  • T.S. Carey et al.

    The outcomes and costs of care for acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopedic surgeons. The North Carolina Back Pain Project

    N Engl J Med

    (1995)
  • T.C. Chalmers et al.

    Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials

    N Engl J Med

    (1983)
  • Clinical Standards Advisory Group

    Report on Back Pain

  • D.A. Conrad et al.

    Economic decision analysis in the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. A methodologic primer

    Spine

    (1994)
  • H.M. Cooper et al.

    Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings

    Psychol Bull

    (1980)
  • I.D. Coulter et al.

    The appropriateness of manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine

  • A. Delitto et al.

    Evidence for use of an extension-mobilization category in acute low back syndrome: A prescriptive validation pilot study

    Phys Ther

    (1993)
  • R.A. Deyo et al.

    Cost, controversy, crisis: Low back pain and the health of the public

    Annu Rev Public Health

    (1991)
  • D.M. Doran et al.

    Manipulation in treatment of low back pain: A multicentre study

    BMJ

    (1975)
  • J. Dvorak et al.

    Musculoskeletal complications

  • D.M. Eddy

    The confidence profile method: A Bayesian method for assessing health technologies

    Operations Research

    (1989)
  • R.E. Erhard et al.

    Relative effectiveness of an extension program and a combined program of manipulation and flexion and extension exercises in patients with acute low back pain syndrome

    Phys Ther

    (1994)
  • D.P. Evans et al.

    Lumbar spinal manipulation on trial. Part I—clinical assessment

    Rheumatology and Rehabilitation

    (1978)
  • A. Faas et al.

    NHG-Standard ‘Lage-Rugpijn’. [Practice guideline ‘low back pain’—# M54] [Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG)]

    Ned Huisarts Wet

    (1996)
  • J.P. Farrell et al.

    Acute low back pain. Comparison of two conservative treatment approaches

    Med J Aust

    (1982)
  • J. Frymoyer et al.

    New perspective on low back pain

  • H.A. Gemmell et al.

    The immediate effect of activator vs. meric adjustment on acute low back pain: A randomized controlled trial

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther

    (1995)
  • G.V. Glass

    Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research

    Education and Research

    (1976)
  • G.V. Glass

    Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research

  • J.R. Glover et al.

    Back pain: A randomized clinical trial of rotational manipulation of the trunk

    Br J Industrial Med

    (1974)
  • C.M. Godfrey et al.

    A randomized trial of manipulation for low-back pain in a medical setting

    Spine

    (1984)
  • A. Grice et al.

    Basic principles in the performance of chiropractic adjusting: Historical review, classification, and objectives

  • Cited by (95)

    • Spinal Manipulation

      2017, Clinical Orthopaedic Rehabilitation: A Team Approach, Fourth Edition
    • Are biomechanical factors, meniscal pathology, and physical activity risk factors for bone marrow lesions at the knee? A systematic review

      2013, Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism
      Citation Excerpt :

      A study was considered to be of high quality if the methodological quality score was greater than the mean of all of the quality scores [32]. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies included in this review, we refrained from statistically pooling the data and performed a best evidence synthesis [29,33–35]. First, the studies were classified according to the type of study design.

    • Physical Medicine Techniques in Pain Management

      2013, Practical Management of Pain: Fifth Edition
    • Physical medicine techniques in pain management

      2013, Practical Management of Pain: Fifth Edition
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Address reprint requests to Gert Bronfort, DC, PhD, Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies, Northwestern College of Chiropractic, 2501 West Eighty-Fourth Street, Bloomington, MN 55431

    *

    Department of Research, Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies, Northwestern College of Chiropractic, Bloomington, Minnesota

    View full text