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 |