Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: A blinded review

B. W. Koes, W. J J Assendelft, G. J M G Van Der Heijden, L. M. Bouter, P. G. Knipschild

Research output: Contribution to JournalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Objective - To assess the efficacy of spinal manipulation for patients with back or neck pain. Design - Computer aided search for published papers and blinded assessment of the methods of the studies. Subjects - 35 randomised clinical trials comparing spinal manipulation with other treatments. Main outcome measures - Score for quality of methods (based on four main categories: study population, interventions, measurement of effect, and data presentation and analysis) and main conclusion of author(s) with regard to spinal manipulation. Results - No trial scored 60 or more points (maximum score 100) suggesting that most were of poor quality. Eighteen studies (51%) showed favourable results for manipulation. In addition, five studies (14%) reported positive results in one or more subgroups. Of the four studies with 50-60 points, one reported that manipulation was better, two reported that manipulation was better in only a subgroup, and one reported that manipulation was no better or worse than reference treatment. Eight trials attempted to compare manipulation with some placebo, with inconsistent results. Conclusions - Although some results are promising, the efficacy of manipulation has not been convincingly shown. Further trials are needed, but much more attention should be paid to the methods of study.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1298-1303
Number of pages6
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume303
Issue number6813
Publication statusPublished - 23 Nov 1991

Fingerprint

Spinal Manipulation
Neck Pain
Back Pain
Computer-Aided Design
Randomized Controlled Trials
Placebos
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Therapeutics
Population

Cite this

Koes, B. W., Assendelft, W. J. J., Van Der Heijden, G. J. M. G., Bouter, L. M., & Knipschild, P. G. (1991). Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: A blinded review. British Medical Journal, 303(6813), 1298-1303.
Koes, B. W. ; Assendelft, W. J J ; Van Der Heijden, G. J M G ; Bouter, L. M. ; Knipschild, P. G. / Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain : A blinded review. In: British Medical Journal. 1991 ; Vol. 303, No. 6813. pp. 1298-1303.
@article{0c8bdda88564446c8e33d96729fe4f85,
title = "Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: A blinded review",
abstract = "Objective - To assess the efficacy of spinal manipulation for patients with back or neck pain. Design - Computer aided search for published papers and blinded assessment of the methods of the studies. Subjects - 35 randomised clinical trials comparing spinal manipulation with other treatments. Main outcome measures - Score for quality of methods (based on four main categories: study population, interventions, measurement of effect, and data presentation and analysis) and main conclusion of author(s) with regard to spinal manipulation. Results - No trial scored 60 or more points (maximum score 100) suggesting that most were of poor quality. Eighteen studies (51{\%}) showed favourable results for manipulation. In addition, five studies (14{\%}) reported positive results in one or more subgroups. Of the four studies with 50-60 points, one reported that manipulation was better, two reported that manipulation was better in only a subgroup, and one reported that manipulation was no better or worse than reference treatment. Eight trials attempted to compare manipulation with some placebo, with inconsistent results. Conclusions - Although some results are promising, the efficacy of manipulation has not been convincingly shown. Further trials are needed, but much more attention should be paid to the methods of study.",
author = "Koes, {B. W.} and Assendelft, {W. J J} and {Van Der Heijden}, {G. J M G} and Bouter, {L. M.} and Knipschild, {P. G.}",
year = "1991",
month = "11",
day = "23",
language = "English",
volume = "303",
pages = "1298--1303",
journal = "British Medical Journal",
issn = "0959-8146",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "6813",

}

Koes, BW, Assendelft, WJJ, Van Der Heijden, GJMG, Bouter, LM & Knipschild, PG 1991, 'Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: A blinded review' British Medical Journal, vol. 303, no. 6813, pp. 1298-1303.

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain : A blinded review. / Koes, B. W.; Assendelft, W. J J; Van Der Heijden, G. J M G; Bouter, L. M.; Knipschild, P. G.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 303, No. 6813, 23.11.1991, p. 1298-1303.

Research output: Contribution to JournalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain

T2 - A blinded review

AU - Koes, B. W.

AU - Assendelft, W. J J

AU - Van Der Heijden, G. J M G

AU - Bouter, L. M.

AU - Knipschild, P. G.

PY - 1991/11/23

Y1 - 1991/11/23

N2 - Objective - To assess the efficacy of spinal manipulation for patients with back or neck pain. Design - Computer aided search for published papers and blinded assessment of the methods of the studies. Subjects - 35 randomised clinical trials comparing spinal manipulation with other treatments. Main outcome measures - Score for quality of methods (based on four main categories: study population, interventions, measurement of effect, and data presentation and analysis) and main conclusion of author(s) with regard to spinal manipulation. Results - No trial scored 60 or more points (maximum score 100) suggesting that most were of poor quality. Eighteen studies (51%) showed favourable results for manipulation. In addition, five studies (14%) reported positive results in one or more subgroups. Of the four studies with 50-60 points, one reported that manipulation was better, two reported that manipulation was better in only a subgroup, and one reported that manipulation was no better or worse than reference treatment. Eight trials attempted to compare manipulation with some placebo, with inconsistent results. Conclusions - Although some results are promising, the efficacy of manipulation has not been convincingly shown. Further trials are needed, but much more attention should be paid to the methods of study.

AB - Objective - To assess the efficacy of spinal manipulation for patients with back or neck pain. Design - Computer aided search for published papers and blinded assessment of the methods of the studies. Subjects - 35 randomised clinical trials comparing spinal manipulation with other treatments. Main outcome measures - Score for quality of methods (based on four main categories: study population, interventions, measurement of effect, and data presentation and analysis) and main conclusion of author(s) with regard to spinal manipulation. Results - No trial scored 60 or more points (maximum score 100) suggesting that most were of poor quality. Eighteen studies (51%) showed favourable results for manipulation. In addition, five studies (14%) reported positive results in one or more subgroups. Of the four studies with 50-60 points, one reported that manipulation was better, two reported that manipulation was better in only a subgroup, and one reported that manipulation was no better or worse than reference treatment. Eight trials attempted to compare manipulation with some placebo, with inconsistent results. Conclusions - Although some results are promising, the efficacy of manipulation has not been convincingly shown. Further trials are needed, but much more attention should be paid to the methods of study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025944591&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025944591&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

VL - 303

SP - 1298

EP - 1303

JO - British Medical Journal

JF - British Medical Journal

SN - 0959-8146

IS - 6813

ER -

Koes BW, Assendelft WJJ, Van Der Heijden GJMG, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: A blinded review. British Medical Journal. 1991 Nov 23;303(6813):1298-1303.