Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Mar 24;6(1):64.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y.

The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews

Affiliations

The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews

Sabrina Mai Nielsen et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a widely used manual treatment, but many reviews exist with conflicting conclusions about the safety of SMT. We performed an overview of reviews to elucidate and quantify the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with SMT.

Methods: We searched five electronic databases from inception to December 8, 2015. We included reviews on any type of studies, patients, and SMT technique. Our primary outcome was SAEs. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Since there were insufficient data for calculating incidence rates of SAEs, we used an alternative approach; the conclusions regarding safety of SMT were extracted for each review, and the communicated opinion were judged by two reviewers independently as safe, harmful, or neutral/unclear. Risk ratios (RRs) of a review communicating that SMT is safe and meeting the requirements for each AMSTAR item, were calculated.

Results: We identified 283 eligible reviews, but only 118 provided data for synthesis. The most frequently described adverse events (AEs) were stroke, headache, and vertebral artery dissection. Fifty-four reviews (46%) expressed that SMT is safe, 15 (13%) expressed that SMT is harmful, and 49 reviews (42%) were neutral or unclear. Thirteen reviews reported incidence estimates for SAEs, roughly ranging from 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 250,000,000 manipulations. Low methodological quality was present, with a median of 4 of 11 AMSTAR items met (interquartile range, 3 to 6). Reviews meeting the requirements for each of the AMSTAR items (i.e. good internal validity) had a higher chance of expressing that SMT is safe.

Conclusions: It is currently not possible to provide an overall conclusion about the safety of SMT; however, the types of SAEs reported can indeed be significant, sustaining that some risk is present. High quality research and consistent reporting of AEs and SAEs are needed.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42015030068 .

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram. AEs = adverse events; DARE = Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; HTA = Cochrane Health Technology Assessment Database; RCT = randomized controlled trial; SMT = spinal manipulative therapy; SRs = systematic reviews. *Non-systematic: does not report to have searched at least two electronic databases or does not document an assessment of the quality of the included studies (case reports, case series, cross-sectional studies and surveys were not required to have been quality assessed). † The DARE database stopped updating March 2015. ‡ Four of these protocols resulted in a systematic review which was retrieved in the updated search

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Vernon H, Mrozek J. A revised definition of manipulation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005;28:68–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2004.12.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brodeur R. The audible release associated with joint manipulation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995;18:155–164. - PubMed
    1. Reggars JW. The manipulative crack. Frequency analysis. Australas Chiropr Osteopathy. 1996;5:39–44. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pettman E. A history of manipulative therapy. J Man Manip Ther. 2007;15:165–174. doi: 10.1179/106698107790819873. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Koes BW, van Tulder M, Lin CW, Macedo LG, McAuley J, Maher C. An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:2075–2094. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1502-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types