Skip to main content

Table 5 Results from 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

First author
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
(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
(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
(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
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
(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