↓ Skip to main content

The regional effect of spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold in asymptomatic subjects: a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The regional effect of spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold in asymptomatic subjects: a systematic literature review
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12998-018-0181-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margaux Honoré, Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde, Olivier Gagey

Abstract

Spinal manipulation (SM) has been shown to have an effect on pain perception. More knowledge is needed on this phenomenon and it would be relevant to study its effect in asymptomatic subjects. To compare regional effect of SM on pressure pain threshold (PPT) vs. sham, inactive control, mobilisation, another SM, and some type of physical therapy. In addition, we reported the results for the three different spinal regions. A systematic search of literature was done using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane. Search terms were ((spinal manipulation) AND (experimental pain)); ((spinal manipulative therapy OR spinal manipulation) AND ((experimental pain OR quantitative sensory testing OR pressure pain threshold OR pain threshold)) (Final search: June 13th 2017). The inclusion criteria were SM performed anywhere in the spine; the use of PPT, PPT tested in an asymptomatic region and on the same day as the SM. Studies had to be experimental with at least one external or internal control group. Studies on only spinal motion or tenderness, other reviews, case reports, and less than 15 invited participants in each group were excluded. Evidence tables were constructed with information relevant to each research question and by spinal region. Results were reported in relation to statistical significance and were interpreted taking into account their quality. Only 12 articles of 946 were accepted. The quality of studies was generally good. In 8 sham controlled studies, a psychologically and physiologically "credible" sham was found in only 2 studies. A significant difference was noted between SM vs. Sham, and between SM and an inactive control. No significant difference in PPT was found between SM and another SM, mobilisation or some type of physical therapy. The cervical region more often obtained significant findings as compared to studies in the thoracic or lumbar regions. SM has an effect regionally on pressure pain threshold in asymptomatic subjects. The clinical significance of this must be quantified. More knowledge is needed in relation to the comparison of different spinal regions and different types of interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 6 9%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Engineering 4 6%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 24 34%