Adverse events and manual therapy: A systematic review
Abstract
Objective To explore the incidence and risk of adverse events with manual therapies. Method The main health electronic databases, plus those specific to allied medicine and manual therapy, were searched. Our inclusion criteria were: manual therapies only; administered by regulated therapists; a clearly described intervention; adverse events reported. We performed a meta-analysis using incident estimates of proportions and random effects models. Results Eight prospective cohort studies and 31 manual therapy RCTs were accepted. The incidence estimate of proportions for minor or moderate transient adverse events after manual therapy was approximately 41% (CI 95% 17-68%) in the cohort studies and 22% (CI 95% 11.1-36.2%) in the RCTs; for major adverse events approximately 0.13%. The pooled relative risk (RR) for experiencing adverse events with exercise, or with sham/passive/control interventions compared to manual therapy was similar, but for drug therapies greater (RR 0.05, CI 95% 0.01-0.20) and less with usual care (RR 1.91, CI 95% 1.39-2.64). Conclusions The risk of major adverse events with manual therapy is low, but around half manual therapy patients may experience minor to moderate adverse events after treatment. The relative risk of adverse events appears greater with drug therapy but less with usual care.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Manual therapies have been reported to be well tolerated, and manual therapy-related adverse events are short lived and mild or moderate in intensity.
“In general, manual therapies have been reported to be well tolerated, and manual therapy-related adverse events are short lived and mild or moderate in intensity.43”
From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [43]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 66 · Cited by 217
- Authors
- Carnes, D., Mars, T. S., Mullinger, B., Froud, R., & Underwood, M.
- Affiliations
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- European School of Osteopathy (GB)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Carnes, Dawn
- Venue
- Manual Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 355-363
- ISSN
- 1356-689X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128301195
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 1.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Manual Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- adverse events, adverse event incidence, major adverse events, drug therapy comparison, usual care, exercise therapy, sham intervention, passive interventions
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Manipulation, Orthopedic, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Incidence, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Musculoskeletal Manipulations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review