Skip to main content

Table 3 Description of 12 studies included in a systematic review on spinal manipulation and pressure pain threshold

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

1st author
Year
Country
[ref #]
Design Sham
Control
Comparison with other treatment
Source of study sample Age of participants
Mean (range)
N subjects
1/invited
2/final analysis
3) per treatment group
4) (M/F)
Intervention groups:
Types and area
Treatment area
- “Lesion”
- Standard
Pain measured where in relation to SM?
Regional
Remote
PPT measured when?
Fryer 2004 Australia [21] RCT Sham
Comparison
Students - (19–34) 1) 96
2) -
3) 3 × 32
4) 39/57
1) SM thoracic
2) Thoracic Mobilization
3) Sham laser
Lesion Regional Before and after SM
Ruiz-Saez 2007 Spain [16] RCT Sham Volunteers, general population with palpatory pain in trapezius 31 (19–45) 1) 72
2) 72
3) 2 × 36
4) 26/46
1) Cervical SM
2) Sham cervical
Lesion Regional Before and 1,5 and 10 min after SM
Fernandez de las Penas 2007 Spain [19] RCT cross over Sham
Control
Comparison
Students in physical therapy, occupational therapy, rehabilitation, and physical medicine 21 (19–25) 1) 15
2) 15
3) 7 for Right SM 8 for Left SM
4) 7/8
1) Cervical SM on the right or left
2) Sham cervical
3) Control
Standard Regional Before and 5 min after SM
Hamilton 2007 Australia [20] RCT Sham
Comparison
Students and teaching body of university 23 (−) 1) 90
2) -
3) 35;25;30
4) 29/61
1) SM cervical
2) Sham thoracic
3) Muscle energy technique (suboccipital and trapezius muscles)
Standard Regional Before 5 and 30 min after SM
Fernandez de las Penas 2008 Spain [18] RCT Sham
Comparison
Volunteers from general population 26 (19–35) 1) 30
2) 30
3) 3 × 10
4) 13/17
1) Cervico-thoracic SM (dominant side)
2) Cervico-thoracic SM (non-dominant side)
3) Sham cervical
Standard Regional Before and 5 min after SM
Thomson 2009 Sweden [13] RCT Sham
Comparison
Osteopathic students and teachers 27 1) 50
2) 50
3) 18;19;13
4) 29/21
1)Lumbar SM
2) Lumbar mobilization
3) Sham lumbar laser
Lesion Regional Before and immediately after SM
Oliveira Campelo 2010 Spain [22] RCT Control
Comparison
Volunteers from school of technology with palpatory pain in jaw muscle 20 (18–30) 1) -
2) 122
3) 40; 41; 41
4) 31/91
1) Cervical SM
2) Soft tissue
3) Control
Standard Regional Before and 2 min after SM
Bishop 2011 USA [24] Randomized experimental design Control
Comparison
Volunteers recruited by posters 23 (−) 1) 90
2) -
3) 3 × 30
4) 24/66
1) SM Cervico-Thoracic region
2) Cervical exercises
3) Control
Standard Regional and remote Before and immediately after SM
Yu 2012 China [15] RCT cross-over Sham General population and medical students 24 (−) 1) 30
2) 30
3) 30 × 2
4) 19/11
1) SM lumbar (activator)
2) Sham (detuned activator)
Lesion using activator protocol Regional and remote Before and after SM
Srbely 2013 Canada [17] RCT Sham Volunteer university students 29 for treatment
27 for sham (−)
1) 44
2) 33
3) 18 for SM and 18 for sham
4)19/17
1) SM cervical
2) Sham cervical
Standard Regional and remote Before, 1,5,10 and 15 min after SM
Jordon 2016 USA [23] RCT Control
Comparison
University community 22 (18–32) 1) 57
2) 54
3) 18;19;17
4) 25/32
1) Rest
2) Lumbar + Cervical SM
3) Cervical + Lumbar SM
Standard Regional and remote Before and after SM
Alonso Perez 2016 Spain [22] RCT Comparisons University population 29 (−) 1) 83
2) 74
3) 25;24;25
4) 39/36
1) Cervical SM
2) Cervical mobilization
3) Cervical glide mobilization
Standard Regional Before and after SM
  1. RCT randomized controlled trial, SM spinal manipulation