The burden of musculoskeletal disorders increases every year, with low back and neck pain being the most frequently reported conditions for seeking manual therapy treatment. In recent years, manual therapy research has begun exploring the dose-response relationship between spinal manipulation treatment characteristics and both clinical and physiological response to treatment. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and appraise the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the effects of spinal manipulation frequency and dosage on both clinical and physiological responses. A scoping review was conducted to identify all available studies pertaining to our research question. Retrieved papers were screened using a 2-phase method, a selective sorting with titles and abstracts. Potentially relevant studies were read, and data was extracted for all included studies. Randomized control trials were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for quality assessment. The search yielded 4854 publications from which 32 were included for analysis. Results were sorted by dosage or frequency outcomes, and divided into human or animal studies. Animal studies mainly focused on dosage and evaluated physiological outcomes only. Studies investigating spinal manipulation dosage effects involved both human and animal research, and showed that varying thrust forces, or thrust durations can impact vertebral displacement, muscular response amplitude or muscle spindle activity. Risk of bias analysis indicated only two clinical trials assessing frequency effects presented a low risk of bias. Although trends in improvement were observed and indicated that increasing the number of SM visits in a short period of time (few weeks) decreased pain and improve disability, the differences between the studied treatment frequencies, were often not statistically significant and therefore not clinically meaningful. The results of this study showed that SM dosage and frequency effects have been mostly studied over the past two decades. Definitions for these two concepts however differ across studies. Overall, the results showed that treatment frequency does not significantly affect clinical outcomes during and following a SM treatment period. Dosage effects clearly influence short-term physiological responses to SM treatment, but relationships between these responses and clinical outcomes remains to be investigated.

Back pain is a common condition during childhood and adolescence. The causes of back pain are largely unknown but it seems plausible that some physical factors such as back muscle strength, back muscle endurance and aerobic capacity may play a role in its development, in particular in the early years. The objectives of this review were to investigate in childhood and adolescence 1) if muscular strength in trunk extension is associated with back pain, 2) if muscular endurance in trunk extension is associated with back pain and 3) if aerobic capacity is associated with back pain. Three systematic critical literature reviews with one meta-analysis. Systematic searches were made in June 2014 in PubMed, Embase and SportDiscus including longitudinal, retrospective or cross-sectional studies on back pain for subjects <20 years. Articles were accepted if they were written in French or English. The review process followed the AMSTAR recommendations. The possibility of conducting a meta-analysis was assessed for each research question. Four articles were included for the first objective, four for the second and three for the last. None of the included articles found an association between back muscle strength in extension and back pain. For the second objective, a protective association between back muscle endurance in extension and back pain was found, later confirmed in a meta-analysis (OR = 0.75, 95 % CI 0.58-0.98). The association between aerobic capacity and back pain is not clear. High back muscle endurance in extension appears protective of back pain in youngsters, but the roles of high back muscle strength in extension and aerobic capacity are less clear.

Manual therapy (MT) is commonly used in rehabilitation to deal with motor impairments in Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, is MT an efficient method to improve gait in PD? To answer the question, a systematic review of clinical controlled trials was conducted. Estimates of effect sizes (reported as standard mean difference (SMD)) with their respective 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were reported for each outcome when sufficient data were available. If data were lacking, p values were reported. The PEDro scale was used for the quality assessment. Three studies were included in the review. MT improved Dynamic Gait Index (SMD = 1.47; 95% CI: 0.62, 2.32; PEDro score: 5/10, moderate level of evidence). MT also improved gait performances in terms of stride length, velocity of arm movements, linear velocities of the shoulder and the hip (p < 0.05; PEDro score: 2/10, limited level of evidence). There was no significant difference between groups after MT for any joint’s range of motion during gait (p > 0.05; PEDro score: 6/10, moderate level of evidence). There is no strong level of evidence supporting the beneficial effect of MT to improve gait in PD. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to understand the impact of MT on gait in PD.

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate how feedback and self-assessment strategies affect performance and retention of manual skills in a group of chiropractic students. Methods: Seventy-five students participated in two spinal manipulation (SM) learning sessions using a force-sensing table. They were recruited between May and November 2022 during HVLA technical courses. Students were randomly assigned into three different groups: participants in group 1 received visual feedback, those in group 2 received visual feedback after self-assessment, and participants in group 3 (C) received no feedback. During the first session, participants started with one block of 3 familiarization trials, followed by two blocks of 6 SM HVLA (high velocity low amplitude) posterior-to-anterior thoracic SM trials, with 3 trials performed with a target force of 450 N and 3 others at 800 N. They received feedback according to their group during the first block, but no feedback was provided during the second block. All participants were invited to participate in a second session for the retention test and to perform a new set SM without any form of feedback. Results: Results showed that visual feedback and visual feedback in addition to self-assessment did not improve short-term SM performance, nor did it improve performance at the one-week retention test. The group that received visual feedback and submitted to self-assessment increased the difference between the target force and the peak force applied, which can be considered a decrease in performance. Conclusion: No learning effects between the three groups of students exposed to different feedback and self-assessment learning strategies were highlighted in the present study. However, future research on innovative motor learning strategies could explore the role of external focus of attention, self-motivation and autonomy in SM performance training.

Objective: To determine the effects of a physical exercise program on spinal manipulation (SM) performance in 1st-year chiropractic students. Methods: One hundred and thirteen students from 2 chiropractic schools were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: exercise group (EG) for campus A students or control group (CG) (no training) for campus B students. All participated in 2 1-hour experimental training sessions that were added to the usual technique curriculum. At the beginning and at the end of each session, SM thrust duration and preload force release were recorded as dependent variables in 5 trials performed on a force-sensing table for a total of 10 recorded trials per session. The session consisted of several drills during which augmented feedback was provided to students to improve their skills. The EG performed physical exercises (push-ups, core stabilization, and speeder board exercises) 3 times per week for an 8-week period between the 2 training sessions. Results: The mean thrust duration increased between the 2 sessions [+0.8 ms (±15.6)]. No difference between groups was found using a t test for independent samples (p = .94). The mean preload force release decreased between the 2 sessions (−6.1 N [±17.1]). Differences between groups were found using a t test for independent samples (p = .03); the results showed a reduction of preload force release in the participants in the EG group compared to those in the CG group (−8.1 N [±16.9] vs −0.3 N [±16.5]). Conclusion: A physical exercise program seems to be beneficial in the SM learning process; chiropractic students should therefore be encouraged to do home physical exercises to develop their physical capabilities and improve SM delivery.

The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effect of spinal manipulation (SMa) and spinal mobilization (SMo) on muscular responses, spinal stiffness, and segmental spinal pressure evoked pain in a population of participants with chronic middle back pain (MBP). In a crossover randomized trial, 2 experienced chiropractors assessed whether volunteers were eligible for the protocol according to a list of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Individuals with MBP participated in 2 experimental sessions within 72 hours. During the first session, participants randomly received a SMa or SMo delivered by an apparatus using a servolinear motor. During the second session, the other modality was delivered. Spinal stiffness and pressure-provoked pain intensity outcomes were assessed before and after each therapy, and muscular responses were recorded during the treatment using surface electromyographic sensors. Signed-rank Wilcoxon tests for muscular responses and generalized model for repeated measure for spinal stiffness and pressure-provoked pain were used for statistical analyses. Among the 32 potential participants, 26 (mean age 29.9 [±9.14], 15 women) completed both sessions. Between-group differences were observed for the muscular response amplitude (P < .001), and indeed the normalized RMS muscular response was found to be higher during SMa than SMo. Similar results were observed for pressure-provoked pain intensity at the level of therapeutic modality application (P = .002) as a higher decrease in pain was found after SMa (47.9 [±22.8] to 36.6 [±23.7]) compared with SMo (47.2 [±23.2] to 45.5 [±24.3]). No between-group differences were found for spinal stiffness change, nor for terminal (P = .08) and global spinal stiffness (P = .06). In a controlled environment, spinal manipulation and mobilization generated different muscle responses and had different immediate effects on pressure-provoked pain intensity for participants with MBP.