The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The management of low back pain remains controversial. Spinal manipulation is a widely used treatment option for low back pain. Recently issued clinical guidelines suggest that spinal manipulation may be effective for patients with acute low back pain. METHODS: A computer-aided search for published papers was conducted, and the methods of the studies identified were assessed. Scores were assigned for quality of methods (based on four main categories: study population, interventions, measurement of effect, and data presentation and analysis), the conclusion of authors regarding spinal manipulation, and the results based on the main outcome measure. RESULTS: Thirty-six randomized clinical trials comparing spinal manipulation with other treatments were identified. The highest score of a trial was 60 points (maximum score was set at 100 points), indicating that most were of poor quality. Nineteen studies (53%) showed favorable results for manipulation. In addition, five studies (14%) reported positive results in one or more subgroups only. Among the five studies with 50-60 points, three were positive, and two were positive only for a subgroup of the study population. Eleven trials compared manipulation with some placebo therapy, with inconsistent results. There appeared to be no clear relation between the methodologic score and the overall outcome of the studies. Twelve trials included patients with acute low back pain only. Of these, five reported positive results, four reported negative results, and three reported positive results in a subgroup of the study population only. There were eight trials comparing manipulation with other conservative treatment modalities, focusing on patients with subacute or chronic low back pain. Of these, five reported positive results, two reported negative results, and in one study no conclusion was presented. There were only 16 studies that included an effect measurement of at least 3 months. In only six of these do the authors report positive effects of manipulation. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of spinal manipulation for patients with acute or chronic low back pain has not been demonstrated with sound randomized clinical trials. There certainly are indications that manipulation might be effective in some subgroups of patients with low back pain. These impressions justify additional research efforts on this topic. Methodologic quality remains a critical aspect that should be dealt with in future studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Freiman, J. A., Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., & Kuebler, R. R. (1978) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197809282991304 · Cited by 1,628
Yusuf, S. (1991) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03470010097038 · Cited by 1,014
Cited by
Chou, R., & Huffman, L. H. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00007 · Cited by 1,045
A Comparison of Osteopathic Spinal Manipulation with Standard Care for Patients with Low Back Pain
Andersson, G. B. J., Lucente, T., Davis, A. M., Kappler, R. E., Lipton, J. A., & Leurgans, S. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199911043411903 · Cited by 332
Bialosky, J. E., Bishop, M. D., Robinson, M. E., Zeppieri, G., & George, S. Z. (2009) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20090058 · Cited by 163
A Critical Review of Reviews on the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain
Furlan, A. D., Clarke, J., Esmail, R., Sinclair, S., Irvin, E., & Bombardier, C. (2001) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200104010-00018 · Cited by 116
Metadata
- Authors
- Koes, B. W., Assendelft, W. J. J., Van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., & Bouter, L. M.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 2860-2871
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2008843150
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-199612150-00013
- The paper
- Koes, B. W., Assendelft, W. J. J., Van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., & Bouter, L. M. (1996). Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199612150-00013
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.