Cargando…
The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews
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 searc...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366149/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28340595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y |
_version_ | 1782517538791358464 |
---|---|
author | Nielsen, Sabrina Mai Tarp, Simon Christensen, Robin Bliddal, Henning Klokker, Louise Henriksen, Marius |
author_facet | Nielsen, Sabrina Mai Tarp, Simon Christensen, Robin Bliddal, Henning Klokker, Louise Henriksen, Marius |
author_sort | Nielsen, Sabrina Mai |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5366149 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53661492017-03-28 The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews Nielsen, Sabrina Mai Tarp, Simon Christensen, Robin Bliddal, Henning Klokker, Louise Henriksen, Marius Syst Rev Research 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-03-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5366149/ /pubmed/28340595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y Text en © The Author(s). 2017 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. |
spellingShingle | Research Nielsen, Sabrina Mai Tarp, Simon Christensen, Robin Bliddal, Henning Klokker, Louise Henriksen, Marius The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews |
title | The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews |
title_full | The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews |
title_fullStr | The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews |
title_full_unstemmed | The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews |
title_short | The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews |
title_sort | risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366149/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28340595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nielsensabrinamai theriskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews AT tarpsimon theriskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews AT christensenrobin theriskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews AT bliddalhenning theriskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews AT klokkerlouise theriskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews AT henriksenmarius theriskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews AT nielsensabrinamai riskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews AT tarpsimon riskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews AT christensenrobin riskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews AT bliddalhenning riskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews AT klokkerlouise riskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews AT henriksenmarius riskassociatedwithspinalmanipulationanoverviewofreviews |