Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of findings for studies of acceptable quality

From: The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature

Origin of study sample Study population Interventions Time of follow-up Outcome variables SMT superior to control
 Balon, 1998 [84] Chiropractic patients Children (7–16 years) with mild or moderate asthma SMT vs. Sham 2 and 4 months FEV1
Quality of life
Infantile Colic
 Olafsdottir, 2001 [87] Public health care clinics, pediatric outpatient clinic at University hospital, general practitioners, chiropractors and direct referrals Infants with colic SMT vs. Sham 8–14 days after intervention Parent’s global perceived improvement or crying time No
 Goertz, 2016 [81] Community in Iowa, USA Adults with pre-hypertension or hypertension SMT vs. Sham Immediately and 6 weeks Blood pressure No
 Ward, 2015 [80] Community in Texas, USA Adults with hypertension SMT vs. Sham Immediately and 10 min Blood pressure, pulse pressure, mean arterial pressure and heart rate No
 Hondras, 1999 [37] Chiropractic patients Women with primary dysmenorrhea SMT vs. Sham 1 h VAS or MMDQ No
 Chaibi, 2017 [82] University hospital, general practitioners and community in Oslo Counties, Norway Adults with migraine SMT vs. Sham Immediately, 3 months Migraine days No (Sham significantly superior to SMT)
     6 and 12 months Migraine duration, intensity or headache index No
  1. Legend: FEV1 forced expiratory volume in 1 s, PEF peak expiratory flow, SMT spinal manipulative therapy, MDQ Moos’ menstrual distress questionnaire, mths months, NS non-significant, VAS visual analog scale