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

Author,

Year

Origin of study sample

Study population

Interventions

Time of follow-up

Outcome variables

SMT superior to control

Asthma

 Balon, 1998 [84]

Chiropractic patients

Children (7–16 years) with mild or moderate asthma

SMT vs. Sham

2 and 4 months

FEV1

PEF

Quality of life

No

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

Hypertension

 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

Dysmenorrhea

 Hondras, 1999 [37]

Chiropractic patients

Women with primary dysmenorrhea

SMT vs. Sham

1 h

VAS or MMDQ

No

Migraine

 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