RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Spinal mobilization characteristics: a scoping literature review of biomechanical parameters
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.07.20.23292952
DO 10.1101/2023.07.20.23292952
A1 Gorrell, Lindsay M
A1 Nyirö, Luana
A1 Pasquier, Mégane
A1 Pagé, Isabelle
A1 Heneghan, Nicola R
A1 Schweinhardt, Petra
A1 Descarreaux, Martin
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/23/2023.07.20.23292952.abstract
AB Background Spinal mobilization (SMob) is often included in the conservative management of spinal pain conditions as a recommended and effective treatment. While some studies quantify the biomechanical (kinetic) parameters of SMob, interpretation of findings is difficult due to poor reporting of methodological details. The aim of this study was to synthesise the literature describing biomechanical parameters of manually applied SMob.Methods This study is reported in accordance with 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. Data were extracted and reported descriptively for the following domains: general study characteristics, number of and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received SMob, region treated, equipment used and biomechanical parameters of SMob.Results Of 7,607 records identified, 36 (0.5%) were included in the analysis. Of these, SMob was delivered to the cervical spine in 13 (36.1%), the thoracic spine in 3 (8.3%) and the lumbopelvic spine in 18 (50.0%) studies. In 2 (5.6%) studies, spinal region was not specified. For SMob applied to all spinal regions, biomechanical parameters were: peak force (0-128N); duration (10-120s); frequency (0.1-4.5Hz); and force amplitude (1-102N).Conclusions This study reports considerable variability of the biomechanical parameters of SMob. In studies reporting biomechanical parameters, SMob was most frequently delivered to the lumbar and cervical spine of humans and most commonly peak force was reported. Future studies should focus on the detailed reporting of biomechanical parameters to facilitate the investigation of clinical dose-response effects.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialN/A.Funding StatementThe author(s) received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics approval was not required for this scoping literature review.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.