15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the treatment of infants, children, and adolescents: a systematic scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To i) identify and map the available evidence regarding effectiveness and harms of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for infants, children and adolescents with a broad range of conditions; ii) identify and synthesise policies, regulations, position statements and practice guidelines informing their clinical use.

          Design

          Systematic scoping review, utilising four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane) and grey literature from root to 4 th February 2021.

          Participants

          Infants, children and adolescents (birth to < 18 years) with any childhood disorder/condition.

          Intervention

          Spinal manipulation and mobilisation

          Outcome measures

          Outcomes relating to common childhood conditions were explored.

          Method

          Two reviewers (A.P., L.L.) independently screened and selected studies, extracted key findings and assessed methodological quality of included papers using Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Synthesis, Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and International Centre for Allied Health Evidence Guideline Quality Checklist. A descriptive synthesis of reported findings was undertaken using a levels of evidence approach.

          Results

          Eighty-seven articles were included. Methodological quality of articles varied. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation are being utilised clinically by a variety of health professionals to manage paediatric populations with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), back/neck pain, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy (CP), dysfunctional voiding, excessive crying, headaches, infantile colic, kinetic imbalances due to suboccipital strain (KISS), nocturnal enuresis, otitis media, torticollis and plagiocephaly. The descriptive synthesis revealed: no evidence to explicitly support the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation for any condition in paediatric populations. Mild transient symptoms were commonly described in randomised controlled trials and on occasion, moderate-to-severe adverse events were reported in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and other lower quality studies. There was strong to very strong evidence for ‘no significant effect’ of spinal manipulation for managing asthma (pulmonary function), headache and nocturnal enuresis, and inconclusive or insufficient evidence for all other conditions explored. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding spinal mobilisation to treat paediatric populations with any condition.

          Conclusion

          Whilst some individual high-quality studies demonstrate positive results for some conditions, our descriptive synthesis of the collective findings does not provide support for spinal manipulation or mobilisation in paediatric populations for any condition. Increased reporting of adverse events is required to determine true risks. Randomised controlled trials examining effectiveness of spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatric populations are warranted.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-022-03781-6.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Risk factors for sports concussion: an evidence-based systematic review.

          Concussion is a common sports injury with approximately 1.6-3.8 million sport-related concussions reported in the USA annually. Identifying risk factors may help in preventing these injuries. This systematic review aims to identify such risk factors. Three electronic databases; ScienceDirect, PubMed and SpringerLink, were searched using the keywords 'RISK FACTORS' or 'PREDISPOSITION' in conjunction with 'SPORT' and 'CONCUSSION'. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 628 identified titles were independently analysed by two of the authors to a final list of 86 articles. Only articles with a level of evidence of I, II and III were included according to robust study design and data analysis. The level of certainty for each risk factor was determined. A high level of certainty for increased risk of a subsequent concussion in athletes sustaining more than one previous concussion was reported in 10 of 13 studies. Further, a high level of certainty was assigned to match play with all 29 studies reporting an increased concussion risk during matches. All other risk factors were evaluated as having a low level of certainty. Although several risk factors were identified from the appraised studies, prospective cohort studies, larger sample sizes, consistent and robust measures of risk should be employed in future research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion.

            Evidence-based healthcare focuses on the need to use interventions that are supported by the best available and most up-to-date evidence or knowledge. Many clinical questions cannot be fully answered by evidence derived from quantitative or qualitative research designs alone, since many areas in healthcare are supported by clinicians' tacit knowledge derived from their clinical experiences. In this situation, evidence generated from a systematic review of text and opinion may be required as the best available evidence. The aim of this study is to highlight the importance and role of expert opinion synthesis in healthcare, and present results of an international methodological group review.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Clinical effectiveness of manual therapy for the management of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions: systematic review and update of UK evidence report

              Background This systematic review updated and extended the "UK evidence report" by Bronfort et al. (Chiropr Osteopath 18:3, 2010) with respect to conditions/interventions that received an 'inconclusive’ or 'negative’ evidence rating or were not covered in the report. Methods A literature search of more than 10 general medical and specialised databases was conducted in August 2011 and updated in March 2013. Systematic reviews, primary comparative studies and qualitative studies of patients with musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions treated with manual therapy and reporting clinical outcomes were included. Study quality was assessed using standardised instruments, studies were summarised, and the results were compared against the evidence ratings of Bronfort. These were either confirmed, updated, or new categories not assessed by Bronfort were added. Results 25,539 records were found; 178 new and additional studies were identified, of which 72 were systematic reviews, 96 were randomised controlled trials, and 10 were non-randomised primary studies. Most 'inconclusive’ or 'moderate’ evidence ratings of the UK evidence report were confirmed. Evidence ratings changed in a positive direction from inconclusive to moderate evidence ratings in only three cases (manipulation/mobilisation [with exercise] for rotator cuff disorder; spinal mobilisation for cervicogenic headache; and mobilisation for miscellaneous headache). In addition, evidence was identified on a large number of non-musculoskeletal conditions not previously considered; most of this evidence was rated as inconclusive. Conclusions Overall, there was limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of manual therapy. Most reviewed evidence was of low to moderate quality and inconsistent due to substantial methodological and clinical diversity. Areas requiring further research are highlighted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                nmilne@bond.edu.au
                Journal
                BMC Pediatr
                BMC Pediatr
                BMC Pediatrics
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2431
                19 December 2022
                19 December 2022
                2022
                : 22
                : 721
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.1033.1, ISNI 0000 0004 0405 3820, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, , Bond University, ; Queensland, Australia
                [2 ]International Organisation of Physiotherapists in Paediatrics, World Physiotherapy Subgroup, Queensland, Australia
                [3 ]GRID grid.5477.1, ISNI 0000000120346234, Research Group Lifestyle and Health, Institute of Human Movement Studies, , University of Applied Sciences, ; Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [4 ]International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapy and Northern Rehab Physical Therapy Specialists, Anchorage, USA
                [5 ]GRID grid.11951.3d, ISNI 0000 0004 1937 1135, University of Witwatersrand, ; Johannesburg, South Africa
                [6 ]GRID grid.25073.33, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, McMaster University, ; Hamilton, Canada
                Article
                3781
                10.1186/s12887-022-03781-6
                9762100
                34980043
                63dc08e8-c27d-484f-a31a-0ead9a6518f6
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 9 November 2021
                : 28 November 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Pediatrics
                spine,manipulation,mobilisation,infant,child,adolescent
                Pediatrics
                spine, manipulation, mobilisation, infant, child, adolescent

                Comments

                Comment on this article