Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gwendolijne Gm Scholten-Peeters, Erik Thoomes, Sophie Konings, Michelle Beijer, Karin Verkerk, Bart W Koes, Arianne P Verhagen

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012.

RESULTS: In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group.

CONCLUSIONS: Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)34
JournalChiropractic and Manual Therapies
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Musculoskeletal Manipulations
Meta-Analysis
Pain
Asthma
Bibliographic Databases
Bibliography
PubMed
Patient Selection
Therapeutics
Confidence Intervals

Keywords

  • Journal Article

Cite this

Scholten-Peeters, Gwendolijne Gm ; Thoomes, Erik ; Konings, Sophie ; Beijer, Michelle ; Verkerk, Karin ; Koes, Bart W ; Verhagen, Arianne P. / Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults : a systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Chiropractic and Manual Therapies. 2013 ; Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 34.
@article{24077ff95f5a4bb986300d82e805781a,
title = "Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints.STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.METHODS: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012.RESULTS: In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95{\%} confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group.CONCLUSIONS: Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Scholten-Peeters, {Gwendolijne Gm} and Erik Thoomes and Sophie Konings and Michelle Beijer and Karin Verkerk and Koes, {Bart W} and Verhagen, {Arianne P}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1186/2045-709X-21-34",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "34",
journal = "Chiropractic and Manual Therapies",
issn = "2045-709X",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults : a systematic review and meta-analysis. / Scholten-Peeters, Gwendolijne Gm; Thoomes, Erik; Konings, Sophie; Beijer, Michelle; Verkerk, Karin; Koes, Bart W; Verhagen, Arianne P.

In: Chiropractic and Manual Therapies, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2013, p. 34.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults

T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Scholten-Peeters, Gwendolijne Gm

AU - Thoomes, Erik

AU - Konings, Sophie

AU - Beijer, Michelle

AU - Verkerk, Karin

AU - Koes, Bart W

AU - Verhagen, Arianne P

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - BACKGROUND: Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints.STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.METHODS: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012.RESULTS: In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group.CONCLUSIONS: Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain.

AB - BACKGROUND: Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints.STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.METHODS: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012.RESULTS: In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group.CONCLUSIONS: Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1186/2045-709X-21-34

DO - 10.1186/2045-709X-21-34

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 34

JO - Chiropractic and Manual Therapies

JF - Chiropractic and Manual Therapies

SN - 2045-709X

IS - 1

ER -