Table 5 Results from 12 studies included in a systematic review on spinal manipulation and pressure pain threshold
First author Year Country [#ref] | Area of SM | Regional: (…………….) | Sign. diff. SM vs. Sham? Was the sham credible? (Yes/No) | Sign. diff SM vs. Control | Sign. diff. SM vs. Other SM (……………) | Sign. diff. SM vs. Mobilization. (………………) | Sign. diff SM vs. Other therapy (…………….) | Quality Score (for sham and comparison groups) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Srbely 2013 Canada [17] | Cervical (bilateral) | Regional: (infraspinatus muscle) | Regional: Yes Sham procedure: Yes | 7.5/9 for sham | ||||
Yu 2012 China [15] | Lumbar | Regional: - (L5-S1 over apophyseal joints) - (L5 dermatome) | Regional: Yes Sham procedure: Yes | 8/9 for sham | ||||
Thomson 2009 Sweden [13] | Lumbar | Regional: (Spinous process of L3) | Regional: No Sham procedure: No | No (Mobilization lumbar spine) | 6/9for sham 6/9 for comparison | |||
Fernandez de las Penas 2008 Spain [18] | Cervical | Regional: (C5-C6 level at dominant and non-dominant side) | Regional: Yes Sham procedure: No | No (SMT dominant side vs. non-dominant side) | 7/9for sham 7/9 for comparison | |||
Ruiz Saez 2007 Spain [16] | Cervical | Regional: (Upper trapezius latent trigger points) | Regional: Yes Sham procedure: No | 8/9 for sham | ||||
Fernandez de las Penas 2007 Spain [19] | Cervical | Regional: (Ipsilateral and contralateral epicondyle) | Regional: Yes Sham procedure: No | Yes | Yes | 6.5/9 for sham 6.5/9 for comparison | ||
Fryer 2004 Australia [21] | Thoracic | Regional: (Thoracic spinous process between T1 and T4) | Regional: No Sham procedure: No | No (Extension mobilization of thoracic spine) | 5/9 for sham 5/9 for comparison | |||
Bishop 2011 USA [24] | Thoracic | Regional: (Between first and second fingers) | Regional: No Remote: No | No (Exercise) | 3.5/9 for comparison | |||
Oliveira Campelo 2010 Spain [22] | Cervical | Regional: (Masseter and temporalis latent trigger points) | Regional: - Masseter: Yes - Temporalis:Yes | 8/9 for comparison | ||||
Hamilton 2007 Australia [20] | Cervical | Regional: (Between C2 and C0) | Regional: No Sham procedure: No | No (Muscle energy technique) | 6.5/9 for sham 7/9 for comparison | |||
Jordon 2016 USA [23] | Cervical and Lumbar | Regional: (Lateral epicondyle of humerus and upper trapezius bilaterally) | Regional: No | 7.5/9 for comparison | ||||
Alonso Perez 2016 Spain [22] | Cervical | Regional: (Cervical process of C7, bilateral Trapezius muscle, epicondyle region) | Regional: No between groups results but within groups results presented | 8.5/9 for comparison |