Quickly review your physical exam skills, and make evidence informed clinical decisions. All while earning CME Credit.

  • CME Credits icon

What is the evidence for spinal manipulation and mobilization (chiropractic treatment) for neck pain?

Summary

Patient Population:

  • 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons)
  • Adults experiencing neck pain (neck pain without specific cause, whiplash-associated disorder, myofascial pain syndrome, neck pain with associated degenerative changes) with or without radicular findings and cervicogenic headache

Intervention:

  • Cervical manipulation, thoracic manipulation, and/or mobilisation

Comparison:

  • Inactive control:
    • placebo (sham/mock treatment, e.g sham TENS or mock mobilisation)
    • adjunct therapy (e.g mobilisation plus treatment versus the same treatment, such as ultrasound)
    • wait list or no treatment
  • Active treatment:
    • Manipulation/mobilisation versus another intervention (e.g medication, acupuncture, physical therapy)
    • One technique of manipulation/mobilisation versus another
    • One dose of manipulation/mobilisation versus another

Outcome:

  • Primary Outcomes:
    • Pain
      • Cervical manipulation versus oral medicine (variations/combinations of NSAID, analgesic, opiod analgesic and muscle relaxant)
        • Intermediate follow-up: no significant difference
        • Long term follow-up: favours manipulation; SMD -0.21 (-0.50 to -0.08); one trial, N=182
      • Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control
        • Short term follow-up: favours manipulation; SMD -1.46 (-2.20 to -0.71); four trials, N=242
        • Intermediate follow-up: favours manipulation; SMD -0.64 (-1.04 to -0.25); one trial, N=111
      • Cervical manipulation versus mobilisation
        • Intermediate follow-up: no significant difference
      • Cervical manipulation versus exercise
        • Intermediate and long term follow-up: no significant difference
      • High (12-18 sessions) versus low (3-8 sessions) dose manipulation
        • No significant difference
    •  Function
      • Cervical manipulation versus oral medicine
        • Intermediate follow-up: favour manipulation; SMD -0.30 (-0.59 to 0.00); one trial, N=182
        • Long term follow-up: no significant difference
      • Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control
        • Short term follow-up: favours manipulation for acute/subacute pain; SMD -1.73 (-2.68 to -0.78); three trials, N=258
        • Short term follow-up: favours manipulation for chronic pain; SMD -0.5 (-0.89 to -0.10); one trial, N=111
        • Intermediate follow-up: favour manipulation; SMD -0.38 (-0.77 to 0.01); one trial, N=111
      • Cervical manipulation versus mobilisation
        • Short and intermediate term follow-up: no significant difference
      • Cervical manipulation versus exercise
        • Intermediate and long term follow-up: no significant difference
      • High (12-18 sessions) versus low (3-8 sessions) dose manipulation
        • No significant difference

 

Outcomes Assessed

  • Benefit
  • Harm
  • Inconclusive

Cervical Manipulation (PAIN)

v. Simple Oral Pain Meds

v. Mobilization

v. Exercise

High v. Low Dose

Cervical Manipulation (FUNCTION)

v. Simple Oral Meds

v. Mobilization

High v. Low Dose

Thoracic Manipulation (PAIN)

v. inactive control

Thoracic Manipulation (FUNCTION)

v. inactive control

Relevant Clinical Info

Author conclusions:

“No high-quality evidence was found, so uncertainty about the effectiveness of mobilisation or manipulation for neck pain remains. Future research is likely to have an important impact on the effect estimate.”

Participant Information

the sample size was 2920

their were 51 studies used.

CME Information / Site Feedback

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

1. What is the impact of this information on you or your practice?

Note: Check all that apply. You may check more than one box.

 I learned something new I am motivated to learn more This information confirmed I did (am doing) the right thing I am reassured I am reminded of something I already knew I am dissatisfied There is a problem with the presentation of this information I disagree with the content of this information This information is potentially harmful

2. Is this information relevant for at least one of your patients?

 Totally relevant Partially relevant Not relevant

3. Will you use this information for a specific patient?

 Yes No Possibly I already know about this information, and I'm Already Using it.

4. Please rate the websites ease of use.

1 2 3 4 5 

5. Likelihood of using site again/recommending the site.

1 2 3 4 5 

Additional Information

×

Example AMSTAR Information

example amstar rating guidlines example amstar rating guidlines ×