Cited by 98Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation

The effectiveness of thoracic spine manipulation for the management of musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Open access
Walser, Ronald F., Meserve, Brent B., Boucher, Thomas R.·2009·Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

Abstract

Thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) is an intervention practiced by different professions, and recently an incursion of research using TSM has been published. The purpose of this review was to examine the effectiveness of TSM for the management of musculoskeletal conditions and the quality of trials that included TSM techniques. A comprehensive search of online databases was performed, and first authors of studies identified were contacted. Thirteen randomized clinical trials were included in the final review. The methodological quality of all studies was assessed using the 10-point PEDro scale. Seven of the 13 studies were of high quality. Three studies looked at TSM for treatment of shoulder conditions; however, there is limited evidence to support the use of TSM for shoulder conditions. Nine studies used TSM for the management of neck conditions. The meta-analysis identified a subset of homogeneous studies evaluating neck pain. The value of the pooled estimator (1.33) was statistically significant for the treatment effect of TSM in the studies with researcher effect removed (95 % confidence interval: 1.15, 1.52). This analysis suggests there is sufficient evidence to support the use of TSM for specific subgroups of patients with neck conditions. This review also identifies the need for further studies to examine the effectiveness of TSM to treat shoulder conditions and the effectiveness of TSM on neck conditions with long-term follow-up studies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1179/106698109791352085

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Only RCTs scoring at least 7 on the PEDro scale, indicating high methodological quality, were included.

    “High-quality trials with a minimum score of 7 out of 10 were included.”

    From Effectiveness of non-pharmacological conservative therapies in adults with fibromyalgia: A systematic review of high-quality clinical trials (2022) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Methodological Quality section (p. 241) reports PEDro scores from 4 to 9 and says that only seven studies were high quality; four were fair quality and two were poor quality. The Methodological Quality Assessment section defines 7 or higher as high quality, but not as an inclusion threshold. (LLM, conf=0.93)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [18]18. González-Iglesias J, Fernández-de-las-Pe- ñas C, Cleland JA, Gutiérrez-Vega MR. Tho- racic spine manipulation for the manage- ment of patients with neck pain: A random- ized clinical trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39:20-27.
  2. [29]29. Wainner RS, Whitman JM, Cleland JA, Flynn TW. Authors' response [letters to the editor-in-chief]. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2008;38:160.
  3. [47]47. Parkin-Smith GF, Penter CS. A clinical trial investigating the effect of two manipulative approaches in the treatment of mechanical neck pain: A pilot study. JNMS 1998;6:6-16.
  4. [51]51. Suter E, Herzog W, Conway PJ, Zhang YT. Reflex response associated with manipula- tive treatment of the thoracic spine. JNMS 1994;2:124-130.
  5. [57]57. Oppenheim JS, Spitzer DE, Segal DH. Non-Non- vascular complications following spinal ma- nipulation. Spine J 2005;5:660-667.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walser, R. F., Meserve, B. B., & Boucher, T. R.
Venue
Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy
Published
2009-12
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
237-246
ISSN
  • 1066-9817 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-6186
OpenAlex
W2020637775
Cited by
98
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Myofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Keywords
thoracic spine manipulation, musculoskeletal disorders, neck pain, shoulder disorders, manual therapy, treatment effectiveness, methodological quality of trials, PEDro scale

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