Spinal mobilization characteristics: a scoping literature review of biomechanical parameters

Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria were developed using the Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research Type (SPIDER) search concept tool (38).

Inclusion criteria

S – the sample population was humans (of any age) and non-humans (e.g. instrumented tool, manikin); PI – the phenomenon of interest was manually delivered SMob and/or SM, delivered by any regulated health professional (e.g. physiotherapist or chiropractor) or student enrolled at an accredited institution; D – observational study designs (e.g. case series studies, cohort and case-control studies); E – kinetic variables of the intervention (e.g. force-time profile); and R – original quantitative research data from studies utilizing SMob and/or SM as either the sole intervention or as a comparator.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria were: i) SMob and/or SM delivered by a mechanical instrument or device; ii) all other therapeutic modalities; iii) manuscript not published in English, French or German; and iv) studies that had been retracted, were secondary analyses, trial registrations, protocols, clinical practice guidelines, commentaries, editorials, conference proceedings or single case studies.

Search strategy

The search strategy was created by subject specific and methodological experts, with the assistance of an experienced medical and health sciences librarian. MEDLINE(Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 4 October 2022. The first author (LG) screened the reference lists of included studies to ensure that all relevant literature was captured. The following search terms and derivatives were adapted for each search engine: (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, sacral). Search strategies for all databases are provided in S1 Appendix.

Study selection process

Records retrieved from the electronic searches were exported to the Rayyan© online platform (2022) (39) and duplicates were removed. Beginning with title and abstract review, groups of two authors (LG and LN; LG and IP; LG and MP) independently screened studies in a step-wise process. Full-texts of the remaining studies were then retrieved and screened independently by groups of two authors (LG and LN; LG and IP). Disagreements regarding study inclusion that could not be resolved by consensus were resolved by a third author (MD).

Data extraction

Data were extracted from eligible studies by groups of two independent authors (LG and LN; LG and MP). These data included: i) general study characteristics (e.g. title, author, year and country of publication and type of study); ii) general study information (e.g. individual who delivered the intervention [e.g. clinician, student], professional qualification of individual delivering the intervention [e.g. physiotherapist, chiropractor], years of clinician experience/number of student hours, number of clinicians/students who delivered SMob or SM, recipient [e.g. human, manikin], number of recipients, whether the intervention was SMob [and grade of mobilization] or SM, the region treated [e.g. cervical, thoracic] and the measurement equipment used to record biomechanical parameters of the intervention); and iii) biomechanical parameters of SMob (e.g. peak force, SMob duration and frequency and force amplitude). Data reporting on SM is submitted for publication elsewhere (manuscript under peer review).

Definitions

In this study, the following definitions were used:

• Peak force: the maximum applied force during a single SMob, reported as the mean of the force peaks that occurred during a specified period of the intervention.

• Duration: the time period of SMob delivery.

• Frequency: the rate of force oscillation during repeated applications.

• Force amplitude: the difference between the minimum and maximum forces applied during the intervention (i.e. the difference between a peak force and trough), reported as the mean of the force amplitudes that occurred during a specified period of SMob.

• Metrological details: descriptions of the suitability (e.g. accuracy, precision, sensitivity) of the measurement equipment to quantify the biomechanical parameters of SMob (40).

Data synthesis

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation and range) were used to report data. Any deviations from this (such as the use of 95% confidence intervals or the reporting of median and interquartile range) are explicitly indicated and reflect how the data were reported in the original studies. Microsoft Excel (Office 365, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, USA) was used to calculate frequencies and proportions of trials reporting on each of the specified domains mentioned above.

In order to manage the substantial volume of data presented in this study, the following decisions were made regarding how to best report the data:: i) for studies reporting forces measured in 3-dimensions (3D) and including the resultant forces (i.e. the total forces applied), only the resultant forces are reported; ii) for studies measuring forces applied in 3D but not including the resultant forces, only the forces measured in the primary direction of the applied force are reported in the tables (e.g. for prone PA thoracic SMob, the vertical forces are reported). Regarding the reporting of metrological data, a consensus was reached by two authors (LG and MD) as to whether adequate information was provided. In cases where metrological details were discussed (e.g. it was stated that measurement equipment accuracy was good) but it was not clear if this statement was based on data (or what data), this was recorded as metrological details were not provided. No assessment of study quality was performed.

Cervical spine

Of the 11 (84.6%) studies that reported on SMob delivered to the cervical spine of humans, the following biomechanical parameters were reported: i) peak force: 0-128N; ii) duration: 60s; iii) frequency: 0.28-2.4Hz; and iv) force amplitude: 14.4-52.5N (Tables 2 & 3; S3 Appendix, Table A). Of the 2 (15.4%) studies that reported on SMob delivered to non-humans (i.e. human analogue manikin:1; instrumented tool:1) peak force 42-181N was reported.

Thoracic spine

Of the 2 (66.7%) studies that reported on SMob delivered to the thoracic spine of humans, the following biomechanical parameters were reported: i) peak force: 297-323N; ii) duration: 3×60s; and iii) frequency: 0.47-0.53Hz (Tables 3 & 4; S3 Appendix, Table B). In the one (33.3%) study that reported on SMob delivered to 12 T5-8 sections of human cadavers: i) peak force: 106-223N; and ii) frequency: 0.5Hz were reported.

Lumbopelvic spine

Of the 17 (94.4%) studies that reported on SMob delivered to the lumbar spine of humans, the following biomechanical parameters were reported: i) peak force: 3-430N; ii) duration: 10-120s; iii) frequency: 0-5Hz; and iv) force amplitude: 1-102N (Tables 3 & 5; S3 Appendix, Table C). In the one (33.3%) study that reported on SMob delivered to an instrumented tool: i) peak force: 36-119N; and ii) duration: 30s were reported.

No region specified

Of the 2 (5.6%) studies that reported on SMob delivered to an unspecified region, the following biomechanical parameters were reported: i) peak force: 2-361N; ii) duration: 20s; and iii) frequency: 28-32 cycles/min (Tables 3 & 6; S3 Appendix, Table D).

Detailed reporting of the intervention is necessary

It is unknown if meaningful clinical differences between different types of SMob ’technique’ (e.g. PA vs. oscillatory distraction) and/or grades of SMob exist (35). To assess this in future studies, there should be a detailed description of the applied SMob, including an explicit explanation of how the grade of SMob was defined. In the current review, detailed descriptions of SMob were not consistently provided. Specifically, there was large variation in the detail of SMob reporting and in many studies, replication of the intervention would be impossible based on the (lack of) details provided. Despite the existence of established reporting guidelines for health-related interventions (41), this lack of detail is not unique to SMob, existing also for interventions including SM (SM manuscript under peer-review) and dry needling (48). It is recommended that a specific guideline for the standardized reporting of SMob, similar to that for the standardized reporting of SM (49), is developed to improve the reporting of SMob interventions. Indeed the (development and) use of such a guideline would go some way to improving the generally poor level of manual therapy trials reporting (50).

Factors possibly responsible for reported heterogeneity of SMob biomechanical parameters

It is not yet fully understood why forces measured at the clinician-patient and patient-table interfaces differ (42,43). However, as differences do exist, it is important for authors to report where and how biomechanical parameters were measured as results from studies measuring forces at different interfaces are not directly comparable. Furthermore, the terminology used should enable replication of study methodologies in future investigations and would be facilitated by the detailed reporting of biomechanical parameter definitions and calculations (e.g. was the peak force measured directly by the equipment or, was it mathematically estimated?). Without such details, it is impossible to compare biomechanical parameters between studies. Furthermore, it has been reported that demographics (e.g. sex, height and BMI) influence the application of manual therapy treatments (i.e. SMob and SM) (44–47). Specifically, these interventions are delivered more forcefully to males with a higher BMI. In summary, the interface of measurement, equipment used, terminology and SMob recipients should be systematically reported in detail to allow for both replication in future studies and reader judgement of the clinical relevance of reported results.

Do biomechanical parameters matter clinically?

It has been reported that biomechanical parameters of SMob (e.g. peak force and force amplitude) differ between students and experienced clinicians (45). Specifically, students apply less force, more slowly. Similar differences are also reported in the SM literature (51), further suggesting that the detailed reporting of the clinical experience of the individual delivering the intervention is necessary. Furthermore, Gorgos and colleagues reported on the reliability of inter-clinician and intra-clinician forces applied during joint mobilisation in a systematic review (52). The authors concluded that while there is variability in the application of force between different clinicians, individual clinicians apply forces consistently. Despite such between-clinician differences in SMob force application, the literature shows that recipients experience beneficial clinical outcomes from various forms of manual therapy (including SMob) despite considerable differences in the biomechanical parameters of the applied interventions (e.g. low velocity, variable amplitude SMob vs. high velocity, low amplitude SM) (35,53,54). Additionally, some authors suggest that there is a threshold of ’dosage’ (in terms of biomechanical parameters such as force and/or rate of force application), rather than an optimal intervention approach (i.e. SMob vs SM), required to elicit beneficial clinical outcomes (55,56). However, to our best knowledge, this subject has not been systematically investigated and no reference standards (i.e. ranges of biomechanical parameters) for SMob application have been published (52). Furthermore, the lack of detailed description of biomechanical parameters limits the generalizability of results reported by both individual studies, and their subsequent syntheses, to clinical practice as it remains unclear exactly what ’dosage’ was applied (48). By exhaustively collating the existing literature, the current review provides a first step towards the development of such reference standards. However, the systematic biomechanical quantification of SMob is required to first establish if ’dosage’ is related to physiological responses (e.g. changes in the autonomic and somatic nervous systems) and/or clinical outcomes (e.g. hypoalgesia).

Strengths and limitations

This review is the first to synthesise SMob biomechanical parameter data beyond peak force (including also duration, frequency and force amplitude) and includes 21 additional studies since the publication of the most recent 2006 review (22). The review was conducted by an international and interprofessional team and reported according to the (PRISMA-ScR) statement (37). The study provides a first step towards the systematic and detailed reporting of SMob interventions, which is necessary to investigate the relationship between the application of SMob and its’ observed clinical outcomes.

It is possible that there was unintentional exclusion of studies reporting on the parameters of interest. However, it is unlikely that seminal studies were excluded for several reasons: i) a comprehensive search strategy was developed by an international, interprofessional team with relevant methodological and clinical expertise with the assistance of an experienced medical sciences librarian; ii) the search strategy was piloted and refined prior to being used; and iii) the review was conducted in a systematic fashion (i.e. using groups of two independent reviewers and data extractors). While it was intended that only original quantitative research data from studies utilizing SMob would be reported, it was not always clear as to whether reported data were previously published in part or fully. However, in instances where this was unclear, the decision was made to include the data. This decision ensured that the current review reported exhaustively on all studies reporting biomechanical parameters of SMob. It is recommended that secondary analyses of data are transparently reported as such (57,58), with citation of the original publication, allowing readers to identify that the data has been previously published and to interpret for themselves the impact of the re-reported data.