ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Physiological changes of cortisol and oxytocin following manual therapy: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Neuroendocrine responses to manual therapy (MT), including changes in cortisol and oxytocin, have long been proposed as potential physiological mechanisms of MT-related effects. Over the past three decades, a growing body of literature has examined hormonal/neuropeptide responses following MT; however, findings remain heterogeneous and unevenly distributed across outcomes and MT intervention types. The objective of this scoping review was to map and characterize the existing evidence for changes in cortisol (CORT) and/or oxytocin (OXT) levels in response to three commonly used MT interventions and to identify patterns and gaps within the literature. Methods: Five databases [Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science] were searched from inception to July 2025. Eligible studies included those which were (a) in English, (b) in humans, (c) original data studies, (d) included a form of MT (massage, osteopathic manipulative treatment, spinal manipulation, etc.), and (e) at least one physiological measure (e.g., saliva, urine, plasma) of CORT and/or OXT. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data using a structured approach consistent with scoping review methodology. Results: The literature search identified 2,374 studies, with 72 articles meeting the eligibility criteria. Studies varied widely in MT intervention type, population characteristics, sample size, rigor, biological sampling methods, and timing of outcome assessment. Most of the included studies measured cortisol outcomes, whereas fewer investigated oxytocin. Both reported hormonal/neuropeptide responses as mixed across MT intervention approaches. Conclusions: CORT and OXT responses to MT were variable across studies, reflecting heterogeneity in intervention delivery, sample size, timing of hormone/neuropeptide collection, and analytical methods. This review underscores the need to standardize how MT-related neuroendocrine outcomes are collected, address the many gaps in the evidence particularly as it relates to OXT, and to clarify the potential mechanistic role of CORT and OXT in MT-related clinical outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/A78TU, Open Science Framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.