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

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