Table 1 Descriptive checklist of the reported ‘effect sizes’ in eight randomized sham-controlled studies included in a previous systematic review on pressure pain threshold changes after spinal manipulation
|
First author Year | Quality score as reported in previous review (Honoré and al, 2018) |
- Area of spinal manipulation - Regional testing site/s | Number of follow-ups and time of follow-ups |
-Is there a reported effect size? (Yes/No) - Which type of “effect size” was reported (between or within-group comparison)? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ruiz Saez 2007 | 8/9 |
- Cervical - Upper trapezius |
3 follow-ups: 1) Immediately after 2) 5 min after 3) 10 min after |
-Yes -Within-group comparison |
| Srbely2013 | 7.5/9 |
-Cervical (bilateral) - Infraspinatus muscle |
4 follow-ups: 1) 1 min after 2) 5 min after 3)10 min after 4) 15 min after |
-No - NA |
| Fernandez de la Penas 2008 | 7/9 |
- Cervical - C5-C6 level |
1 follow-up: 1) 5 min after |
-Yes - Within-group comparison |
| Fernandez de la Penas 2007 | 7/9 |
- Cervical - Ipsilateral and contralateral epicondyle |
1 follow up: 1) 5 min after |
- Yes - Within-group comparison |
| Hamilton 2007 | 7/9 |
- Cervical - Between C0 and C2 |
2 follow-ups: 1) 5 min after 2) 30 min after |
- Yes - Within-group comparison |
| Yu 2012 | 8/9 |
- Lumbar - L5-S1 over apophyseal joints - L5 dermatome |
1 follow-up: 1) Immediately after |
- No - NA |
| Thomson 2009 | 6/9 |
- Lumbar -Spinous process of L3 |
1 follow-up: 1) Immediately after |
- Yes -Within-group comparison |
| Fryer 2004 | 5/9 |
-Thoracic -Thoracic spinous process between T1 and T4 |
1 follow-up: 1) Immediately after |
- Yes - Within-group comparison |