"Thirteen studies with a total of 1313 participants were included in the systematic review, and 12 studies with 977 participants in the meta-analysis. For most time-points prescriptive studies found manipulation to be superior to mobilization for both pain and disability. At no time-point did pragmatic designs find a difference between mobilization and manipulation for either pain or disability. When a pragmatic design was used, representing actual clinical practice, patients improved with both techniques with no difference between mobilization and manipulation. When clinicians were prescribed techniques, not representing true clinical practice, manipulation showed better outcomes than mobilization for pain and disability."

#science #chiropractor #chiropractic #research #education #evidence based #patient centered #interprofessional #collaborative #rehabilitation #public health #spinal health #musculoskeletal health #ethics #pain #function #disability #QOL #knowledgetranslation

Facebook Comments

Join over 12,000 Evidence-Based Chiropractors across the globe (world) in our thriving Facebook community – where knowledge, collaboration, and growth come together!

Donate

If you enjoy our content, please feel free to buy us a cup of coffee! We are grateful for your support of science-based spine care.

Research Posts

World Spine Care in Botswana

A Beginners Guide to Evidence-Based Chiropractic Clinical Practice

Research Week in Review: 21st – 26th October

Evidence based chiropractic care advances in the Philippines

Get in Touch

WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU

© Evidence-Based Chiropractic Network All rights reserved.