Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40100908›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

The mechanisms of manual therapy: A living review of systematic, narrative, and scoping reviews.

Damian L Keter, Joel E Bialosky, Kevin Brochetti, Carol A Courtney, Martha Funabashi, Steve Karas, Kenneth Learman, Chad E Cook

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Damian L KeterPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.
Joel E BialoskyDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Kevin BrochettiPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.
Carol A CourtneyDepartment of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago Illinois, United States of America.
Martha FunabashiDivision of Research and Innovation, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0292-8668
Steve KarasDepartment of Physical Therapy, Chatham University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Kenneth LearmanDepartment of Graduate Studies in Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio, United States of America.
Chad E CookDepartment of Orthopaedics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8622-8361

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTreatment mechanisms are the underlying process or pathway through which a treatment influences the body. This includes molecular, cellular and physiological processes or pathways contributing to treatment effect. Manual therapy (MT) evokes complex mechanistic responses across body systems, interacting with the individual patient and context to promote a treatment response. Challenges arise as mechanistic studies are spread across multiple professions, settings and populations. The purpose of this review is to summarize treatment mechanisms that have been reported to occur with MT application.

methodsFour electronic databases were searched (Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PEDro) for reviews investigating mechanistic responses which occur during/post application of MT. This review was registered a priori with PROSPERO (CRD42023444839). Methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) and risk of bias (ROBIS) were assessed for systematic and scoping reviews. Data were synthesized by mechanistic domain.

resultsSixty-two reviews were included. Systematic reviews (n = 35), narrative reviews (n = 24), and scoping reviews (n = 4) of asymptomatic (n = 37), symptomatic (n = 43), non-specified human subjects (n = 7) and animals (n = 7) were included. Reviews of moderate quality supported neurovascular, neurological, and neurotransmitter/neuropeptide changes. Reviews of low quality supported neuroimmunce, neuromuscular, and neuroendocrine changes. Reviews of critically low quality support biomechanical changes.

conclusionsFindings support critically low to moderate quality evidence of complex multisystem mechanistic responses occurring with the application of MT. Results support peripheral, segmental spinal, and supraspinal mechanisms occurring with the application of MT, which can be measured directly or indirectly. The clinical value of these findings has not been well established. While MT has proven to be an effective intervention to treat conditions such as pain, the current body of literature leaves uncertainty as to 'why' MT interventions work, and future research should look to better define which mechanisms (or combinations of mechanisms) are mediators of clinical response.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal ManipulationsHumans

Identifiers

PMID40100908
PMCPMC11918397

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.