Benefits and Harms of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Treating Recent and Persistent Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the benefits and harms of cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for treating neck pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Chiropractic Literature Index bibliographic databases, and grey literature sources, up to June 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating SMT compared to guideline-recommended and nonrecommended interventions, sham SMT, and no intervention for adults with neck pain were eligible for our systematic review. Prespecified outcomes included pain, range of motion, disability, health-related quality of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogenous RCTs at short-term and long-term outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach to judge the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs. There was very low to low certainty evidence that SMT was more effective than recommended interventions for improving pain at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.97) and long term (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.16), and for reducing disability at short-term (SMD, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.42) and long term (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.06). Transient side effects only were found (eg, muscle soreness). CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):510-528. Epub: 10 August 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11708.

Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of spinal manipulation: a cross-sectional survey of Italian physiotherapists.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: High-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and commonly used manual therapy intervention in physiotherapy. Beliefs surrounding the safety and effectiveness of SM have challenged its use, and even advocated for its abandonment. Our study aimed to investigate the knowledge and beliefs surrounding SM by Italian physiotherapists compared with similar practitioners in other countries. METHODS: An online survey with 41 questions was adapted from previous surveys and was distributed via a mailing list of the Italian Physiotherapists Association (March 22-26, 2020). The questionnaire was divided into 4 sections to capture information on participant demographics, utilization, potential barriers, and knowledge about SM. Questions were differentiated between spinal regions. Attitudes towards different spinal regions, attributes associated with beliefs, and the influence of previous educational background were each evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 7398 registered physiotherapists, 575 (7.8%) completed the survey and were included for analysis. The majority of respondents perceived SM as safe and effective when applied to the thoracic (74.1%) and lumbar (72.2%) spines; whereas, a smaller proportion viewed SM to the upper cervical spine (56.8%) as safe and effective. Respondents reported they were less likely to provide and feel comfortable with upper cervical SM (respectively, 27.5% and 48.5%) compared to the thoracic (respectively, 52.2% and 74.8%) and lumbar spines (respectively, 46.3% and 74.3%). Most physiotherapists (70.4%) agreed they would perform additional screening prior to upper cervical SM compared to other spinal regions. Respondents who were aware of clinical prediction rules were more likely to report being comfortable with SM (OR 2.38-3.69) and to perceive it as safe (OR 1.75-3.12). Finally, physiotherapists without musculoskeletal specialization, especially those with a traditional manual therapy background, were more likely to perform additional screening prior to SM, use SM less frequently, report being less comfortable performing SM, and report upper cervical SM as less safe (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: The beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists surrounding the use of SM are significantly different when comparing the upper cervical spine to other spinal regions. An educational background in traditional manual therapy significantly influences beliefs and attitudes. We propose an updated framework on evidence-based SM.