Spinal manipulation frequency and dosage effects on clinical and physiological outcomes: a scoping review

doi:10.1186/s12998-019-0244-0

PMC full text:

Chiropr Man Therap. 2019; 27: 23.

Published online 2019 May 22. doi: 10.1186/s12998-019-0244-0

Copyright/LicenseRequest permission to reuse: Copyright © The Author(s). 2019
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Table 2

Summary of the SM dose-physiological response relationship in human studies. (N=Newton)

Studies	Dosage parameters	Spine level	Sample size	Outcomes measures	Results
[19] Colloca et al, 2003	Thrust forces: 30 N, 150 N	L4	N = 4	PAIN PRESSURE THRESHOLD	● NO DIFFERENCES
[23] Krouwel et al, 2010	Thrust forces: 50, 200 N	L5	N = 30		● NO DIFFERENCES
[23] Krouwel et al, 2010	Thrust durations: 1,5 Hz or sustained pressure	L5	N = 30		● NO DIFFERENCES
[28] Pentelka et al, 2012	Thrust durations: 30s,60s	L3	N = 19		● NO DIFFERENCES
[29] Willett et al, 2010	Thrust durations: 1 Hz, 2 Hz	L1 to L3	N = 30		● NO DIFFERENCES
[19] Colloca et al, 2003	Thrust forces: 30 N, 150 N	L1 to L3	N = 4	MUSCULAR RESPONSE AMPLITUDE	● Data suggest higher responses with maximum thrust force setting
[22] Keller et al, 2000	Thrust forces: 19,5 N,190 N	Bilateral PSIS, sacrum, S1 and L5, L4, L2, T12 and T8	N = 40		● Increase after SM treatment
[22] Keller et al, 2000	Thrust forces: 19,5 N,190 N	Bilateral PSIS, sacrum, S1 and L5, L4, L2, T12 and T8	N = 40		● SMT showed a greater increasing than control group and sham treatment
[25] Nougarou et al, 2014	Preload forces: 5 N,50 N, 95 N, 140 N	T6 to T8	N = 23		● Decrease during preload
[25] Nougarou et al, 2014	Preload forces: 5 N,50 N, 95 N, 140 N	T6 to T8	N = 23		● Increase during thrust
[26] Nougarou et al, 2016	Combination of thrust forces / thrust durations: 57 ms/150 N, 80 ms/200 N, 102 ms,250 N, 125 ms/300 N	T6 to T8	N = 25		● NO DIFFERENCES
[24] Nougarou et al, 2013	Thrust forces: 80,130,180, 255 N	T6,T8	N = 26		● Increase in thrust phase and resolution phase
[10] Pagé et al, 2016	Thrust forces: 75 N,125 N,175 N, 225 N	L3	N = 51		● Increase with increasing thrust force
[19] Colloca et al, 2003	Thrust forces: 30 N, 150 N	L1 to L3	N = 4	VERTEBRAL DISPLACEMENT	● Data suggest an increase when greater force is applied
[20] Colloca et al, 2004	Thrust forces: 30 N, 88 N, 117 N, 150 N	L3 to S2	N = 9		● Increase with increasing thrust force
[22] Keller et al, 2000	Thrust forces: 19,5 N,190 N	Bilateral PSIS, sacrum, S1 and L5, L4, L2, T12 and T8	N = 40		●increase after any treatment
[22] Keller et al, 2000	Thrust forces: 19,5 N,190 N	Bilateral PSIS, sacrum, S1 and L5, L4, L2, T12 and T8	N = 40		●SMT showed a greater increasing than control group and sham treatment
[25] Nougarou et al, 2014	Preload forces: 5 N,50 N, 95 N, 140 N	T6 to T8	N = 23		●Linear decrease with force during thrust phase ● Increase in preload phase with increasing preload
[26] Nougarou et al, 2016	Combination of thrust forces / thrust durations: 57 ms/150 N, 80 ms/200 N, 102 ms,250 N, 125 ms/300 N	T6 to T8	N = 25		● Increase in thrust phase with increasing thrust force
[27] Pagé et al, 2014	Thrust durations: 125 ms, 175 ms, 275 ms	T7,T8	N = 20		● NO DIFFERENCES