Indication for spinal sensitization in chronic low back pain: mechanical hyperalgesia adjacent to but not within the most painful body area.

Introduction: In 85% of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), no specific pathoanatomical cause can be identified. Besides primary peripheral drivers within the lower back, spinal or supraspinal sensitization processes might contribute to the patients' pain. Objectives: The present study conceptualized the most painful area (MP) of patients with nonspecific CLBP as primarily affected area and assessed signs of peripheral, spinal, and supraspinal sensitization using quantitative sensory testing (QST) in MP, a pain-free area adjacent to MP (AD), and a remote, pain-free control area (CON). Methods: Fifty-nine patients with CLBP (51 years, SD = 16.6, 22 female patients) and 35 pain-free control participants individually matched for age, sex, and testing areas (49 years, SD = 17.5, 19 female participants) underwent a full QST protocol in MP and a reduced QST protocol assessing sensory gain in AD and CON. Quantitative sensory testing measures, except paradoxical heat sensations and dynamic mechanical allodynia (DMA), were Z-transformed to the matched control participants and tested for significance using Z-tests (α = 0.001). Paradoxical heat sensations and DMA occurrence were compared between cohorts using Fisher's exact tests (α = 0.05). The same analyses were performed with a high-pain and a low-pain CLBP subsample (50% quantile). Results: Patients showed cold and vibration hypoesthesia in MP (all Ps < 0.001) and mechanical hyperalgesia (P < 0.001) and more frequent DMA (P = 0.044) in AD. The results were mainly driven by the high-pain CLBP subsample. In CON, no sensory alterations were observed. Conclusion: Mechanical hyperalgesia and DMA adjacent to but not within MP, the supposedly primarily affected area, might reflect secondary hyperalgesia originating from spinal sensitization in patients with CLBP.

Sensory phenotypes in complex regional pain syndrome and chronic low back pain-indication of common underlying pathomechanisms.

Introduction: First-line pain treatment is unsatisfactory in more than 50% of chronic pain patients, likely because of the heterogeneity of mechanisms underlying pain chronification. Objectives: This cross-sectional study aimed to better understand pathomechanisms across different chronic pain cohorts, regardless of their diagnoses, by identifying distinct sensory phenotypes through a cluster analysis. Methods: We recruited 81 chronic pain patients and 63 age-matched and sex-matched healthy controls (HC). Two distinct chronic pain cohorts were recruited, ie, complex regional pain syndrome (N = 20) and low back pain (N = 61). Quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed in the most painful body area to investigate somatosensory changes related to clinical pain. Furthermore, QST was conducted in a pain-free area to identify remote sensory alterations, indicating more widespread changes in somatosensory processing. Results: Two clusters were identified based on the QST measures in the painful area, which did not represent the 2 distinct pain diagnoses but contained patients from both cohorts. Cluster 1 showed increased pain sensitivities in the painful and control area, indicating central sensitization as a potential pathomechanism. Cluster 2 showed a similar sensory profile as HC in both tested areas. Hence, either QST was not sensitive enough and more objective measures are needed to detect sensitization within the nociceptive neuraxis or cluster 2 may not have pain primarily because of sensitization, but other factors such as psychosocial ones are involved. Conclusion: These findings support the notion of shared pathomechanisms irrespective of the pain diagnosis. Conversely, different mechanisms might contribute to the pain of patients with the same diagnosis.

Spinal manipulation characteristics: a scoping literature review of force-time characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and effective treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. Biomechanical (kinetic) parameters (e.g. preload/peak force, rate of force application and thrust duration) can be measured during SM, quantifying the intervention. Understanding these force-time characteristics is the first step towards identifying possible active ingredient/s responsible for the clinical effectiveness of SM. Few studies have quantified SM force-time characteristics and with considerable heterogeneity evident, interpretation of findings is difficult. The aim of this study was to synthesise the literature describing force-time characteristics of manual SM. METHODS: This scoping literature review is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. Databases were searched from inception to October 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spine, spinal, manipulation, mobilization or mobilisation, musculoskeletal, chiropractic, osteopathy, physiotherapy, naprapathy, force, motor skill, biomechanics, dosage, dose-response, education, performance, psychomotor, back, neck, spine, thoracic, lumbar, pelvic, cervical and sacral. Data were extracted and reported descriptively for the following domains: general study characteristics, number of and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received SM, region treated, equipment used and force-time characteristics of SM. RESULTS: Of 7,607 records identified, 66 (0.9%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Of these, SM was delivered to the cervical spine in 12 (18.2%), the thoracic spine in 40 (60.6%) and the lumbopelvic spine in 19 (28.8%) studies. In 6 (9.1%) studies, the spinal region was not specified. For SM applied to all spinal regions, force-time characteristics were: preload force (range: 0-671N); peak force (17-1213N); rate of force application (202-8700N/s); time to peak thrust force (12-938ms); and thrust duration (36-2876ms). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variability in the reported kinetic force-time characteristics of SM exists. Some of this variability is likely due to differences in SM delivery (e.g. different clinicians) and the measurement equipment used to quantify force-time characteristics. However, improved reporting in certain key areas could facilitate more sophisticated syntheses of force-time characteristics data in the future. Such syntheses could provide the foundation upon which dose-response estimates regarding the clinical effectiveness of SM are made.

Reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in randomised clinical trials: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To describe if there has been a change in the reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) since 2016. DESIGN: A systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: Databases were searched from March 2016 to May 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spinal manipulation; chiropractic; osteopathy; physiotherapy; naprapathy; medical manipulation and clinical trial. METHODS: Domains of interest (pertaining to adverse events) included: completeness and location of reporting; nomenclature and description; spinal location and practitioner delivering manipulation; methodological quality of the studies and details of the publishing journal. Frequencies and proportions of studies reporting on each of these domains were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to examine the effect of potential predictors on the likelihood of studies reporting on adverse events. RESULTS: There were 5399 records identified by the electronic searches, of which 154 (2.9%) were included in the analysis. Of these, 94 (61.0%) reported on adverse events with only 23.4% providing an explicit description of what constituted an adverse event. Reporting of adverse events in the abstract has increased (n=29, 30.9%) while reporting in the results section has decreased (n=83, 88.3%) over the past 6 years. Spinal manipulation was delivered to 7518 participants in the included studies. No serious adverse events were reported in any of these studies. CONCLUSIONS: While the current level of reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in RCTs has increased since our 2016 publication on the same topic, the level remains low and inconsistent with established standards. As such, it is imperative for authors, journal editors and administrators of clinical trial registries to ensure there is more balanced reporting of both benefits and harms in RCTs involving spinal manipulation.

Vertebral arteries do not experience tensile force during manual cervical spine manipulation applied to human cadavers.

BACKGROUND: The vertebral artery (VA) may be stretched and subsequently damaged during manual cervical spine manipulation. The objective of this study was to measure VA length changes that occur during cervical spine manipulation and to compare these to the VA failure length. METHODS: Piezoelectric ultrasound crystals were implanted along the length of the VA (C1 to C7) and were used to measure length changes during cervical spine manipulation of seven un-embalmed, post-rigor human cadavers. Arteries were then excised, and elongation from arbitrary in-situ head/neck positions to first force (0.1 N) was measured. Following this, VA were stretched (8.33 mm/s) to mechanical failure. Failure was defined as the instance when VA elongation resulted in a decrease in force. RESULTS: From arbitrary in-situ head/neck positions, the greatest average VA length change during spinal manipulation was [mean (range)] 5.1% (1.1 to 15.1%). From arbitrary in-situ head/neck positions, arteries were elongated on average 33.5% (4.6 to 84.6%) prior to first force occurrence and 51.3% (16.3 to 105.1%) to failure. Average failure forces were 3.4 N (1.4 to 9.7 N). CONCLUSIONS: Measured in arbitrary in-situ head/neck positions, VA were slack. It appears that this slack must be taken up prior to VA experiencing tensile force. During cervical spine manipulations (using cervical spine extension and rotation), arterial length changes remained below that slack length, suggesting that VA elongated but were not stretched during the manipulation. However, in order to answer the question if cervical spine manipulation is safe from a mechanical perspective, the testing performed here needs to be repeated using a defined in-situ head/neck position and take into consideration other structures (e.g. carotid arteries).

Definition and classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization are interventions used by many healthcare providers to manage musculoskeletal conditions. Although there are many reports of adverse events (or undesirable outcomes) following such interventions, there is no common definition for an adverse event or clarity on any severity classification. This impedes advances of patient safety initiatives and practice. This scoping review mapped the evidence of adverse event definitions and classification systems following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization for musculoskeletal conditions in adults. METHODS: An electronic search of the following databases was performed from inception to February 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ICL, PEDro, Cochrane Library, Open Grey and Open Theses and Dissertations. Studies including adults (18 to 65 years old) with a musculoskeletal condition receiving spinal or peripheral joint manipulation or mobilization and providing an adverse event definition and/or classification were included. All study designs of peer-reviewed publications were considered. Data from included studies were charted using a standardized data extraction form and synthesised using narrative analysis. RESULTS: From 8248 identified studies, 98 were included in the final synthesis. A direct definition for an adverse event and/or classification system was provided in 69 studies, while 29 provided an indirect definition and/or classification system. The most common descriptors to define an adverse event were causality, symptom severity, onset and duration. Twenty-three studies that provided a classification system described only the end anchors (e.g., mild/minor and/or serious) of the classification while 26 described multiple categories (e.g., moderate, severe). CONCLUSION: A vast array of terms, definition and classification systems were identified. There is no one common definition or classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization. Findings support the urgent need for consensus on the terms, definition and classification system for adverse events related to these interventions.

Kinematics of the head and associated vertebral artery length changes during high-velocity, low-amplitude cervical spine manipulation.

BACKGROUND: Cervical spine manipulation (CSM) is a frequently used treatment for neck pain. Despite its demonstrated efficacy, concerns regarding the potential of stretch damage to vertebral arteries (VA) during CSM remain. The purpose of this study was to quantify the angular displacements of the head relative to the sternum and the associated VA length changes during the thrust phase of CSM. METHODS: Rotation and lateral flexion CSM procedures were delivered bilaterally from C1 to C7 to three male cadaveric donors (Jan 2016-Dec 2019). For each CSM the force-time profile was recorded using a thin, flexible pressure pad (100-200 Hz), to determine the timing of the thrust. Three dimensional displacements of the head relative to the sternum were recorded using an eight-camera motion analysis system (120-240 Hz) and angular displacements of the head relative to the sternum were computed in Matlab. Positive kinematic values indicate flexion, left lateral flexion, and left rotation. Ipsilateral refers to the same side as the clinician's contact and contralateral, the opposite. Length changes of the VA were recorded using eight piezoelectric ultrasound crystals (260-557 Hz), inserted along the entire vessel. VA length changes were calculated as D = (L1 - L0)/L0, where L0 = length of the whole VA (sum of segmental lengths) or the V3 segment at CSM thrust onset; L1 = whole VA or V3 length at peak force during the CSM thrust. RESULTS: Irrespective of the type of CSM, the side or level of CSM application, angular displacements of the head and associated VA length changes during the thrust phase of CSM were small. VA length changes during the thrust phase were largest with ipsilateral rotation CSM (producing contralateral head rotation): [mean ± SD (range)] whole artery [1.3 ± 1.0 (- 0.4 to 3.3%)]; and V3 segment [2.6 ± 3.6 (- 0.4 to 11.6%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Mean head angular displacements and VA length changes were small during CSM thrusts. Of the four different CSM measured, mean VA length changes were largest during rotation procedures. This suggests that if clinicians wish to limit VA length changes during the thrust phase of CSM, consideration should be given to the type of CSM used.

Electromyographic Responses of Neck, Back, and Limb Outlet Muscles Associated With High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Manual Cervical and Upper Thoracic Spinal Manipulation of Individuals With Mild Neck Disability: A Descriptive Observational Investigation.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent of electromyographic responses associated with manual high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) spinal manipulation systematically applied to the upper and lower cervical and upper thoracic spines in a cohort with mild neck disability. METHODS: The study was a descriptive observational investigation, with all participants receiving the same interventions. Nineteen participants with mild neck disability received 6 manual HVLA manipulations to the cervical and upper thoracic spine. Bipolar surface electromyography electrode pairs were used to measure responses of 16 neck, back, and limb outlet muscles bilaterally. The number of electromyographic responses was then calculated. RESULTS: Electromyographic responses associated with cervical and thoracic manipulation occurred in a median of 4 of the 16 (range: 1-14) recorded muscles. Cervical spinal manipulation was associated with the highest rates of electromyographic responses in neck muscles, whereas responses in back muscles were highest after upper thoracic manipulation. CONCLUSION: Cervical spinal manipulation was associated with the highest rate of electromyographic responses in muscles of the cervical spine (sternocleidomastoid and splenius cervicis), whereas responses in back muscles (upper and middle trapezius, latissimus dorsi, and longissimus thoracis) were highest after upper thoracic manipulations. This result suggests that electromyographic muscular responses associated with spinal manipulation primarily occur locally (close to the target segment) rather than distally.

Expert consensus on a standardised definition and severity classification for adverse events associated with spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilisation: protocol for an international e-Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation (SMT) and mobilisation (MOB) are widely used and recommended in the best practice guidelines for managing musculoskeletal conditions. Although adverse events (AEs) have been reported following these interventions, a clear definition and classification system for AEs remains unsettled. With many professionals using SMT and MOB, establishing consensus on a definition and classification system is needed to assist with the assimilation of AEs data across professions and to inform research priorities to optimise safety in clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This international multidisciplinary electronic Delphi study protocol is informed by a scoping review and in accordance with the 'Guidance on Conduction and Reporting Delphi Studies'. With oversight from an expert steering committee, the study comprises three rounds using online questionnaires. Experts in manual therapy and patient safety meeting strict eligibility criteria from the following fields will be invited to participate: clinical, medical and legal practice, health records, regulatory bodies, researchers and patients. Round 1 will include open-ended questions on participants' working definition and/or understanding of AEs following SMT and MOB and their severity classification. In round 2, participants will rate their level of agreement with statements generated from round 1 and our scoping review. In round 3, participants will rerate their agreement with statements achieving consensus in round 2. Statements reaching consensus must meet the a priori criteria, as determined by descriptive analysis. Inferential statistics will be used to evaluate agreement between participants and stability of responses between rounds. Statements achieving consensus in round 3 will provide an expert-derived definition and classification system for AEs following SMT and MOB. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Research Ethics Board and deemed exempt by Parker University's Institutional Review Board. Results will be disseminated through scientific, professional and educational reports, publications and presentations.

Differences in force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics of two high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulations following one another in quick succession.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy is an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the mechanisms underlying its clinical efficacy are not fully understood. Previous studies have not systematically compared force-time parameters and electromyographic responses associated with spinal manipulation. In this study, force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics associated with multiple manual high-velocity, low-amplitude cervical and upper thoracic spinal manipulations were investigated. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics between two spinal manipulations delivered following one another in quick succession if the first thrust was not associated with an audible cavitation. METHODS: Nine asymptomatic and eighteen symptomatic participants received six Diversified-style spinal manipulations to the cervical and upper thoracic spines during data collected February 2018 to September 2019. Peak force, rate of force application and thrust duration were measured using a pressure pad. Bipolar surface electrodes were used to measure the electromyographic responses and reflex delay times in sixteen neck, back and limb outlet muscles bilaterally. Differences in force-time parameters and electromyographic data were analyzed between the first and second thrust. RESULTS: Fifty-two spinal manipulations were included in this analysis. Peak force was greater (p < 0.001) and rate of force application faster (p < 0.001) in the second thrust. Furthermore, peak electromyographic responses were higher following the second thrust in asymptomatic (p < 0.001) and symptomatic (p < 0.001) subjects. Also, electromyographic delays were shorter in the symptomatic compared to the asymptomatic participants for the second thrust (p = 0.039). There were no adverse patient events. CONCLUSION: When a second manipulation was delivered because there was not audible cavitation during the first thrust, the second thrust was associated with greater treatment forces and faster thrust rates. Peak electromyographic responses were greater following the second thrust.

Reflex Responses of Neck, Back, and Limb Muscles to High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Manual Cervical and Upper Thoracic Spinal Manipulation of Asymptomatic Individuals-A Descriptive Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to determine the extent of reflex responses after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) of the cervical and upper thoracic spine. METHODS: Eleven asymptomatic participants received 6 commonly used SMTs to the cervical and upper thoracic spine. Bipolar surface electromyography electrodes were used to measure reflex responses of 16 neck, back, and proximal limb muscles bilaterally. The percentage of occurrence and the extent of reflex responses of these muscles were determined. RESULTS: Reflex responses after cervical SMT were typically present in all neck and most back muscles, whereas responses in the outlets to the arm and leg were less frequent. This trend was similar, although decreased in magnitude, after thoracic SMT. CONCLUSION: Reflex responses were greatest after upper cervical SMT and lowest with thoracic SMT.

Predictive factors for reporting adverse events following spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials - secondary analysis of a systematic review.

While spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is recommended for the treatment of spinal disorders, concerns exist about adverse events associated with the intervention. Adequate reporting of adverse events in clinical trials would allow for more accurate estimations of incidence statistics through meta-analysis. However, it is not currently known if there are factors influencing adverse events reporting following SMT in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Thus our objective was to investigate predictive factors for the reporting of adverse events in published RCTs involving SMT. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for RCTs involving SMT. Domains of interest included: sample size; publication date relative to the 2010 CONSORT statement; risk of bias; the region treated; and number of intervention sessions. 7398 records were identified, of which 368 articles were eligible for inclusion. A total of 140 (38.0%) articles reported on adverse events. Articles were more likely to report on adverse events if they possessed larger sample sizes, were published after the 2010 CONSORT statement, had a low risk of bias and involved multiple intervention sessions. The region treated was not a significant predictor for reporting on adverse events. Predictors for reporting on adverse events included larger sample size, publication after the 2010 CONSORT statement, low risk of bias and trials involving multiple intervention sessions. We recommend that researchers focus on developing robust methodologies and participant follow-up regimens for RCTs involving SMT.

Assignment of adverse event indexing terms in randomized clinical trials involving spinal manipulative therapy: an audit of records in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases.

BACKGROUND: Reporting of adverse events in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is encouraged by the authors of The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. With robust methodological design and adequate reporting, RCTs have the potential to provide useful evidence on the incidence of adverse events associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). During a previous investigation, it became apparent that comprehensive search strategies combining text words with indexing terms was not sufficiently sensitive for retrieving records that were known to contain reports on adverse events. The aim of this analysis was to compare the proportion of articles containing data on adverse events associated with SMT that were indexed in MEDLINE and/or EMBASE and the proportion of those that included adverse event-related words in their title or abstract. METHODS: A sample of 140 RCT articles previously identified as containing data on adverse events associated with SMT was used. Articles were checked to determine if: (1) they had been indexed with relevant terms describing adverse events in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases; and (2) they mentioned adverse events (or any related terms) in the title or abstract. RESULTS: Of the 140 papers, 91% were MEDLINE records, 85% were EMBASE records, 81% were found in both MEDLINE and EMBASE records, and 4% were not in either database. Only 19% mentioned adverse event-related text words in the title or abstract. There was no significant difference between MEDLINE and EMBASE records in the proportion of available papers (p = 0.078). Of the 113 papers that were found in both MEDLINE and EMBASE records, only 3% had adverse event-related indexing terms assigned to them in both databases, while 81% were not assigned an adverse event-related indexing term in either database. CONCLUSIONS: While there was effective indexing of RCTs involving SMT in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, there was a failure of allocation of adverse event indexing terms in both databases. We recommend the development of standardized definitions and reporting tools for adverse events associated with SMT. Adequate reporting of adverse events associated with SMT will facilitate accurate indexing of these types of manuscripts in the databases.

The reporting of adverse events following spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials-a systematic review.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is commonly used to treat spinal disorders. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of SMT in the treatment of neck and back disorders, concerns exist about the nature and incidence of adverse events associated with the intervention. Comprehensive reporting of adverse events in clinical trials could allow for accurate incidence estimates through meta-analysis. However, it is not clear if randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that involve SMT are currently reporting adverse events adequately. PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe the extent of adverse events reporting in published RCTs involving SMT, and to determine whether the quality of reporting has improved since publication of the 2010 Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. STUDY DESIGN: This is a systematic literature review. METHODS: The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for RCTs involving SMT. Domains of interest included classifications of adverse events, completeness of adverse events reporting, nomenclature used to describe the events, methodological quality of the study, and details of the publishing journal. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Frequencies and proportions of trials reporting on each of the specified domains above were calculated. Differences in proportions between pre- and post-CONSORT trials were calculated with 95% confidence intervals using standard methods, and statistical comparisons were analyzed using tests for equality of proportions with continuity correction. There was no funding obtained for this study. The authors declare no conflict of interest. RESULTS: Of 7,398 records identified in the electronic searches, 368 articles were eligible for inclusion in this review. Adverse events were reported in 140 (38.0%) articles. There was a significant increase in the reporting of adverse events post-CONSORT (p=.001). There were two major adverse events reported (0.3%). Only 22 articles (15.7%) reported on adverse events in the abstract. There were no differences in reporting of adverse events post-CONSORT for any of the chosen parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Although there has been an increase in reporting adverse events since the introduction of the 2010 CONSORT guidelines, the current level should be seen as inadequate and unacceptable. We recommend that authors adhere to the CONSORT statement when reporting adverse events associated with RCTs that involve SMT.

Manual and Instrument Applied Cervical Manipulation for Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 different cervical manipulation techniques for mechanical neck pain (MNP). METHODS: Participants with MNP of at least 1 month's duration (n = 65) were randomly allocated to 3 groups: (1) stretching (control), (2) stretching plus manually applied manipulation (MAM), and (3) stretching plus instrument-applied manipulation (IAM). MAM consisted of a single high-velocity, low-amplitude cervical chiropractic manipulation, whereas IAM involved the application of a single cervical manipulation using an (Activator IV) adjusting instrument. Preintervention and postintervention measurements were taken of all outcomes measures. Pain was the primary outcome and was measured using visual analogue scale and pressure pain thresholds. Secondary outcomes included cervical range of motion, hand grip-strength, and wrist blood pressure. Follow-up subjective pain scores were obtained via telephone text message 7 days postintervention. RESULTS: Subjective pain scores decreased at 7-day follow-up in the MAM group compared with control (P = .015). Cervical rotation bilaterally (ipsilateral: P = .002; contralateral: P = .015) and lateral flexion on the contralateral side to manipulation (P = .001) increased following MAM. Hand grip-strength on the contralateral side to manipulation (P = .013) increased following IAM. No moderate or severe adverse events were reported. Mild adverse events were reported on 6 occasions (control, 4; MAM, 1; IAM, 1). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a single cervical manipulation is capable of producing immediate and short-term benefits for MNP. The study also demonstrates that not all manipulative techniques have the same effect and that the differences may be mediated by neurological or biomechanical factors inherent to each technique.

Curriculum mapping within an Australian master of chiropractic program: Congruence between published evidence for chiropractic and student assessment tasks.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine congruence between student assessment tasks within the master of chiropractic curriculum at Macquarie University and 2 separate but related domains: (1) disorders commonly presenting to chiropractors and (2) musculoskeletal conditions for which there is published evidence that chiropractic treatment is effective. METHODS: A literature review was undertaken to determine which musculoskeletal disorders commonly present to chiropractors and the conditions for which there is published evidence that chiropractic treatment is effective. These 2 domains were then mapped to the assessment tasks within the curriculum and analyzed. The proportion of time allocated to theory versus skill acquisition was also determined. RESULTS: Assessment tasks within the curriculum specifically focus on low back pain, neck pain, lower extremity pain, thoracic pain, and adhesive capsulitis. This curriculum mapping demonstrates congruence between the student assessment tasks and published evidence for chiropractic. The assessments also contain an appropriate balance between theory and skills acquisition. CONCLUSION: There is congruence between the assessment tasks within the curriculum and the 2 domains against which it was mapped. Thus, completion of the curriculum provides training relevant to conditions that commonly present to chiropractors and musculoskeletal conditions for which chiropractic treatment is effective.