Skip to main content


Table 11 Results from four studies included in a systematic review on the effect of spinal manipulation on ‘brain function’, comparing spinal manipulation to another physical stimulus

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
Dishman 2008 [18] Healthy MEP amplitudes Yes (p < 0.05) Statistically significant increase at 10 s. post-SM compared to control Immediately after (each 10 s. during 100 s. after SM or control) Low
Haavik 2010a [26] “Subclinical neck/spinal pain” P14-N18 SEP peak ratio No Unclear (said to be within 25 min post-SM or control) Medium
N20-P25 SEP peak ratio No
P22-N30 SEP peak ratio Yes (p = .003) Statistically significant decrease post-SM compared to control
Haavik 2016 [24] MEP amplitudes Yes (p = .01) Statistically significant increase post-SM compared to control Not-reported Low
k (slope of the steepest part of the curve) No
S50 (stimulus intensity to obtain a response 50% of the maximum) No
Christiansen 2018 [28] V-wave amplitudes Yes (p < 0.01–0.03) Statistically significant increase at each time point post-SM compared to control -Immediately after −30 min after − 60 min after Acceptable
  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. MEP Motor evoked potential, SEP Somatosensory evoked potential, SM Spinal manipulation