Elsevier

Manual Therapy

Volume 15, Issue 4, August 2010, Pages 355-363
Manual Therapy

Systematic review
Adverse events and manual therapy: A systematic review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2009.12.006Get rights and content

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 ∼41% (CI 95% 17–68%) in the cohort studies and 22% (CI 95% 11.1–36.2%) in the RCTs; for major adverse events ∼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.

Section snippets

Definitions

We defined manual therapy as: any techniques administered manually, using touch, by a trained practitioner for therapeutic purposes. Throughout our research, depending on the author descriptions, we used the following classification terms for adverse events (Carnes et al., 2010).

  • ‘Major’: medium to long term; moderate or severe intensity

  • ‘Moderate’: medium to long term; moderate intensity

  • ‘Minor’: short term and mild intensity

Searches and selection

We searched Medline (using OVID), Science Direct, Web of Science, PEDro

Results

There were 230 RCT articles selected for full paper review. Our searches identified 60 non-RCT articles and 36 articles on RCTs that fulfilled our inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). To maximise the quality of evidence reviewed we focused our analyses on prospective cohort studies and RCTs only. We report here data from eight prospective cohort studies (nine articles, Table 1) and 31 RCTs (five articles presented data from the same trials, Table 2). The remaining articles consisted of reviews of

Discussion

This systematic review of published RCTs and cohort studies confirms that, in line with the reports of others (Senstad et al., 1996a, Senstad et al., 1996b, Leboeuf-Yde et al., 1997, Barrett and Breen, 2000, Cagnie et al., 2004, Rubinstein et al., 2007), around half of people treated with manual therapy can expect minor to moderate adverse events after treatment, especially after the first treatment (Rubinstein et al., 2007). However, the incidence of major adverse effects is small; there were

Conclusion

Nearly half of patients after manual therapy experience adverse events that are short-lived and minor; most will occur within 24 h and resolve within 72 h. The risk of major adverse events is very low, lower than that from taking medication. We suggest that risk is inherent in all health interventions and should be weighed against patient-perceived benefit and alternative available treatments.

Competing interests

Dawn Carnes, Thomas Mars and Robert Froud are trained Osteopaths, there are no other competing interests

Contributors

Dawn Carnes was the Principle Investigator and managed the review and guarantees the scientific rigour and accuracy of the content of the paper. Tom Mars did the searches, selection of papers, data extraction and analysis with Dawn Carnes. Brenda Mullinger contributed advice and editing assistance, Martin Underwood provided expertise, advice and comments on each successive draft. Robert Froud gave statistical advice and produced the forest plots.

Funding

Funding was provided by the General Osteopathic Council (UK) via the National Council for Osteopathic Research (NCOR). All contributors had access to the original and raw data.

Ethics

No ethics approvals were required for this research.

References (63)

  • C. Hawk et al.

    Comparison of bioenergetic synchronization technique and customary chiropractic care for older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain

    Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics

    (2006)
  • E.M. Hay et al.

    Comparison of physical treatments versus a brief pain-management programme for back pain in primary care: a randomised clinical trial in physiotherapy practice

    Lancet

    (2005)
  • M.A. Hondras et al.

    Spinal manipulative therapy versus a low force mimic manoeuvre for women with primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized, observer-blinded, clinical trial

    Pain

    (1999)
  • E.L. Hurwitz et al.

    Second prize: the effectiveness of physical modalities among patients with low back pain randomized to chiropractic care: findings from the UCLA low back pain study

    Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics

    (2002)
  • E.L. Hurwitz et al.

    Adverse reactions to chiropractic treatment and their effects on satisfaction and clinical outcomes among patients enrolled in the UCLA neck pain study

    Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics

    (2004)
  • R. Kerry et al.

    Cervical arterial dysfunction and manual therapy: a critical literature review to inform professional practice

    Manual Therapy

    (2008)
  • D. Oliphant

    Safety of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar disk herniations: a systematic review and risk assessment

    Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics

    (2004)
  • G. Plaugher et al.

    Practice-based randomized controlled-comparison clinical trial of chiropractic adjustments and brief massage treatment at sites of subluxation in subjects with essential hypertension: pilot study

    Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics

    (2002)
  • S.M. Rubinstein et al.

    The benefits outweigh the risks for patients undergoing chiropractic care for neck pain: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study

    Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics

    (2007)
  • V. Santilli et al.

    Chiropractic manipulation in the treatment of acute back pain and sciatica with disc protrusion: a randomized double-blind clinical trial of active and simulated spinal manipulations

    Spine

    (2006)
  • C.E. Sawyer et al.

    A feasibility study of chiropractic spinal manipulation versus sham spinal manipulation for chronic otitis media with effusion in children

    Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics

    (1999)
  • R.G. Strunk et al.

    A feasibility study assessing manual therapies to different regions of the spine for patients with subacute or chronic neck pain

    Journal of Chiropractic Medicine

    (2008)
  • H. Thiel et al.

    The reporting of patient safety incidents—first experiences with the chiropractic reporting and learning system (CRLS): a pilot study

    Clinical Chiropractic

    (2006)
  • P.J. Tuchin et al.

    A randomized controlled trial of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine

    Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics

    (2000)
  • B. Vicenzino et al.

    Specific manipulative therapy treatment for chronic lateral epicondylalgia produces uniquely characteristic hypoalgesia

    Manual Therapy

    (2001)
  • O. Airaksinen et al.

    European guidelines for the management of chronic non-specific low back pain

    (2004)
  • D.G. Altman

    Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement

    BMJ

    (1996)
  • A.J. Barrett et al.

    Adverse effects of spinal manipulation

    Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

    (2000)
  • G. Bove et al.

    Spinal manipulation in the treatment of episodic tension-type headache: a randomized controlled trial

    JAMA

    (1998)
  • G. Bronfort et al.

    A randomized clinical trial of exercise and spinal manipulation for patients with chronic neck pain

    Spine

    (2001)
  • K. Burton et al.

    Single blind randomised controlled trial of chemonucleolysis and manipulation in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation

    European Spine Journal

    (2000)
  • Cited by (147)

    • Letter to the Editor: Underlining there is nothing wrong with osteopathy

      2023, International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
    • Veterinary Spinal Manipulative Therapy or Animal Chiropractic in Veterinary Rehabilitation

      2023, Veterinary Clinics of North America - Small Animal Practice
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text