Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Description of eight 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 Yr Ref Design Type of study subjects Number of study subjects (males/females) -Age (range) -Mean -Type of spinal manipulation -Type of control How was cerebral activity measured? When was cerebral activity measured? Clinical outcomes assessed (measurement tool and time of assessment)
Kelly 2000 [16] Randomized controlled trial Healthy: volunteer chiropractic students with evidence of upper cervical “subluxation”. 36 (9 / 9) intervention group / (11 / 7) control group -20-37 (both groups) -24 (both groups) -Toggle (X1) -Control: 2 min of resting Mental rotation reaction-time task Before After: exact time unknown None
Dishman 2002 [17] Non-randomized controlled trial Healthy: healthy college students, volunteers 24 (? /?) (repartition in each group not reported) -? /? -25 intervention group / 27 control group -HVLA L5-S1 (X1) -Control: side posture positioning without lower limb flexion, truncal torque, or manual contact MEP amplitudes Before After: -immediately (20 to 120 s) -5 min −10 min None
Dishman 2008a [18] Randomized controlled trial Healthy: healthy chiropractic students, volunteers 72 (21 / 5) intervention group / (15 / 8) control 1 / (14 /9) control 2 -? (3 groups, said to be between their 20s and 30s) -? (3 groups) -HVLA L5-S1 (X1) -Control 1: L5-S1 preloading -Control 2: side posture positioning MEP amplitudes Before (10 MEP recorded during 100 s) After: immediately (10 MEP recorded during 100 s) None
Fryer 2012 [16] Crossover controlled trial (order of interventions randomized) Healthy: healthy university students, volunteers 14 (10 / 4) -18-50 -23 -HVLA L5-S1 (X2 to 4) -Control: bilateral side-posture positioning without truncal torque, or manual contact MEP latencies and amplitudes Silent periods Before After: exact time unknown (according to the Discussion approximately 10 min after) None
Ogura 2011 [19] Crossover controlled trial (order of interventions “counterbalanced”) Symptomatic: volunteers, recruited at the local university, with mechanical cervical pain and shoulder stiffness. 12 (12 / 0) -21–40 -28 -Instrumentally assisted manipulation (location and nb of spinal levels adjusted unknown) -Control: 20 min of resting Regional cerebral metabolic rate (rate of glucose consumption) No before measurementAfter: between 35 to 55 min post- intervention or resting -Stress Response Scale (immediately after interventions) -European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (immediately after interventions) -Pain intensity (visual analogue scale) (before and immediately after spinal manipulation, not before- after-20 min of resting)
Inami 2017 [8] Crossover controlled trial (order of interventions randomized) Symptomatic: volunteers (unclear origin – probably the same as Ogura et al. 2011) with mechanical cervical pain and shoulder stiffness. 21 (21 / 0) -? -26 -Instrumentally assisted manipulation (where needed, anywhere at the spine, sacroiliac joints and/or scapulae, mean of 8 per subject) -Control: 20 min of resting Regional cerebral metabolic rate (rate of glucose consumption) No before measurement After: between 35 min to 1.05 h. post-intervention or resting Pain intensity (visual analogue scale) (before and immediately after spinal manipulation, and before and after 20 min of resting, only for 9/21 subjects)
Haavik-Taylor 2007aa [20] Crossover controlled trial (order of interventions randomized) “Subclinical neck/spinal pain”: volunteers (unknown origin) with a history of recurring neck pain or stiffness and with evidence of cervical spinal dysfunction, pain free at the time of the study. 13 (5 / 8) -22-45 -31 -HVLA cervical (X2 to 3 per subject) -Control 1: passive head movement without loading and thrust -Control 2: nothing MEP amplitudes CSP durations Before After: -within 0–10 min -within 10–20 min -within 20–30 min None
Haavik-Taylor 2010b [21] Crossover controlled trial (order of interventions randomized) “Subclinical neck/spinal pain”: student and university staff members, volunteers, with reoccurring neck problems and evidence of cervical spine dysfunction, pain free at the time of the study. 11 (4 / 7) -22-40 -29 -HVLA cervical (nb unknown, may be at several levels) + 20 min of typing task -Control: 20 min of typing task only SEP MU/M + U peak ratios: -P14-N18 complex -Parietal N20 (N20-P25 complex) -Frontal N30 (P22-N30 complex) Before After: exact time unclear (said to be immediately after HVLA+ 20 min of typing task or after 20 min typing task only, but also said to be within 25 min post interventions, i.e. possibly within 45 min after spinal manipulation) None
  1. Articles are presented by (i) type of study subjects, i.e. healthy, symptomatic or “subclinical neck/spinal pain” subjects, (ii) type of outcomes or family of outcomes, and (iii) consecutively by year of publication
  2. CSP Cortical silent period, HVLA High-velocity low-amplitude, MEP Motor evoked potential, nb Number, SEP Somatosensory evoked potential
  3. aArticle presented in Tables 2 and 3