Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of the SM dose-physiological response relationship in human studies. (N=Newton)

From: Spinal manipulation frequency and dosage effects on clinical and physiological outcomes: a scoping review

Studies

Dosage parameters

Spine level

Sample size

Outcomes measures

Results

[19] Colloca et al, 2003

Thrust forces: 30 N, 150 N

L4

N = 4

PAIN PRESSURE THRESHOLD

NO DIFFERENCES

[23] Krouwel et al, 2010

Thrust forces: 50, 200 N

L5

N = 30

NO DIFFERENCES

Thrust durations: 1,5 Hz or sustained pressure

[28] Pentelka et al, 2012

Thrust durations: 30s,60s

L3

N = 19

NO DIFFERENCES

[29] Willett et al, 2010

Thrust durations: 1 Hz, 2 Hz

L1 to L3

N = 30

NO DIFFERENCES

[19] Colloca et al, 2003

Thrust forces: 30 N, 150 N

L1 to L3

N = 4

MUSCULAR RESPONSE AMPLITUDE

Data suggest higher responses with maximum thrust force setting

[22] Keller et al, 2000

Thrust forces: 19,5 N,190 N

Bilateral PSIS, sacrum, S1 and L5, L4, L2, T12 and T8

N = 40

Increase after SM treatment

SMT showed a greater increasing than control group and sham treatment

[25] Nougarou et al, 2014

Preload forces: 5 N,50 N, 95 N, 140 N

T6 to T8

N = 23

Decrease during preload

Increase during thrust

[26] Nougarou et al, 2016

Combination of thrust forces / thrust durations: 57 ms/150 N, 80 ms/200 N, 102 ms,250 N, 125 ms/300 N

T6 to T8

N = 25

NO DIFFERENCES

[24] Nougarou et al, 2013

Thrust forces: 80,130,180, 255 N

T6,T8

N = 26

Increase in thrust phase and resolution phase

[10] Pagé et al, 2016

Thrust forces: 75 N,125 N,175 N, 225 N

L3

N = 51

Increase with increasing thrust force

[19] Colloca et al, 2003

Thrust forces: 30 N, 150 N

L1 to L3

N = 4

VERTEBRAL DISPLACEMENT

Data suggest an increase when greater force is applied

[20] Colloca et al, 2004

Thrust forces: 30 N, 88 N, 117 N, 150 N

L3 to S2

N = 9

Increase with increasing thrust force

[22] Keller et al, 2000

Thrust forces: 19,5 N,190 N

Bilateral PSIS, sacrum, S1 and L5, L4, L2, T12 and T8

N = 40

increase after any treatment

SMT showed a greater increasing than control group and sham treatment

[25] Nougarou et al, 2014

Preload forces: 5 N,50 N, 95 N, 140 N

T6 to T8

N = 23

Linear decrease with force during thrust phase

Increase in preload phase with increasing preload

[26] Nougarou et al, 2016

Combination of thrust forces / thrust durations: 57 ms/150 N, 80 ms/200 N, 102 ms,250 N, 125 ms/300 N

T6 to T8

N = 25

Increase in thrust phase with increasing thrust force

[27] Pagé et al, 2014

Thrust durations: 125 ms, 175 ms, 275 ms

T7,T8

N = 20

NO DIFFERENCES