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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nielsen, Sabrina Mai, Tarp, Simon, Christensen, Robin, Bliddal, Henning, Klokker, Louise, Henriksen, Marius
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