Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 10 Results from seven studies included in a systematic review on the effect of spinal manipulation on ‘brain function’, comparing spinal manipulation to an inactive control

From: Unravelling functional neurology: does spinal manipulation have an effect on the brain? - a systematic literature review

1st Author Year Ref Type of study subjects Outcome Was a statistically significant difference between groups observed? Time of assessment Quality classification
Kelly 2000 [29] Healthy Reaction-time to a mental rotation task Yes (p < .05) Statistically significant decrease post-SM compared to control Unknown Medium
Dishman 2002 [17] MEP amplitudes Yes (p < .05) Statistically significant increase from 20 to 120 s. post-SM compared to control -Immediately after (each 20s during 120 s after SM or control) − 5 min − 10 min Medium
Dishman 2008 [18] MEP amplitudes Yes (p < .05) Statistically significant increase at 10 s. post-SM compared to control Immediately after (each 10s during 100 s after SM or control) Low
Fryer 2012 [16] MEP amplitudes Yes (p = .04) Statistically significant decrease post-SM compared to control Unknown (approximately 10 min after one intervention or the other) Medium
MEP latencies No
CSP durations No
Ogura 2011 [19] Symptomatic (mechanical neck pain and shoulder stiffness) Regional cerebral metabolic rate Yes (p < .001) Statistically significant increase post-SM compared to control in the inferior prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and middle temporal gyrus; and statistically significant decrease post-SM compared to control in the cerebellar vermis and visual association cortex Between 35 to 55 min Low
Inami 2017 [8] Regional cerebral metabolic rate Yes (p < .05) Statistically significant increase post-SM compared to control in the Broca’s area, anterior cingulate cortex, somatosensory association cortex, Wernike’s area, visual association cortex, cerebellar vermis, and visual cortex; and statistically significant decrease post-SM compared to control in the inferior parietal lobule, frontal pole, inferior frontal gyrus, pars triangularis, premotor area/supplementary motor area, primary motor cortex, frontal eye field, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, angular gyrus, fusiform gyrus, inferior temporal gyrus, and temporal pole. Between 35 to 65 min Low
Haavik 2010b [21] “Subclinical neck/spinal pain” P14-N18 SEP peak ratio No Unclear (said to be within 25 min post-SM or control, possibly 45 min after one intervention or the other) Medium
N20-P25 SEP peak ratio No
P22-N30 SEP peak ratio Yes (p = .00005) Statistically significant decrease post-SM compared to control
  1. Results are reported (i) grouped by type of study subjects (healthy, symptomatic, or with “subclinical neck/spinal pain”), (ii) grouped by type of outcomes, and (iii) consecutively by year of publication
  2. CSP Cortical silent period, MEP Motor evoked potential, SEP Somatosensory evoked potential, SM Spinal manipulation