↓ Skip to main content

Spinal manipulative therapy, Graston technique® and placebo for non-specific thoracic spine pain: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 349)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
66 tweeters
facebook
20 Facebook pages
reddit
3 Redditors
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Spinal manipulative therapy, Graston technique® and placebo for non-specific thoracic spine pain: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12998-016-0096-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy L. Crothers, Simon D. French, Jeff J. Hebert, Bruce F. Walker

Abstract

Few controlled trials have assessed the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for thoracic spine pain. No high quality trials have been performed to test the efficacy and effectiveness of Graston Technique® (GT), an instrument-assisted soft tissue therapy. The objective of this trial was to determine the efficacy of SMT and GT compared to sham therapy for the treatment of non-specific thoracic spine pain. People with non-specific thoracic pain were randomly allocated to one of three groups: SMT, GT, or a placebo (de-tuned ultrasound). Each participant received up to 10 supervised treatment sessions at Murdoch University chiropractic student clinic over a 4 week period. The participants and treatment providers were not blinded to the treatment allocation as it was clear which therapy they were receiving, however outcome assessors were blinded and we attempted to blind the participants allocated to the placebo group. Treatment outcomes were measured at baseline, 1 week, and at one, three, six and 12 months. Primary outcome measures included a modified Oswestry Disability Index, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Treatment effects were estimated with intention to treat analysis and linear mixed models. One hundred and forty three participants were randomly allocated to the three groups (SMT = 36, GT = 63 and Placebo = 44). Baseline data for the three groups did not show any meaningful differences. Results of the intention to treat analyses revealed no time by group interactions, indicating no statistically significant between-group differences in pain or disability at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months. There were significant main effects of time (p < 0.01) indicating improvements in pain and disability from baseline among all participants regardless of intervention. No significant adverse events were reported. This study indicates that there is no difference in outcome at any time point for pain or disability when comparing SMT, Graston Technique® or sham therapy for thoracic spine pain, however all groups improved with time. These results constitute the first from a fully powered randomised controlled trial comparing SMT, Graston technique® and a placebo. This trial was registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on the 7(th) February, 2008. ACTRN12608000070336.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 2%
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 99 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 24 23%
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Unspecified 15 14%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 26%
Unspecified 17 16%
Sports and Recreations 11 10%
Psychology 7 7%
Other 9 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2019.
All research outputs
#210,351
of 13,396,110 outputs
Outputs from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#6
of 349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,861
of 264,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,396,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them