ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2026
Neurophysiological Response of Spinal Mobilization and Manipulation in Individuals With and Without Musculoskeletal Spine Disorders: A Scoping Review.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neurophysiological Response of Spinal Mobilization and Manipulation in Individuals With and Without Musculoskeletal Spine Disorders: A Scoping Review.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Spinal manipulation (SMA) and spinal mobilization (SMO) are two of the most widely used manual therapy techniques (SMT) for spine-related musculoskeletal pain management. Although their neuromuscular effects have been reported, emerging evidence suggests that SMT may also induce neurophysiological changes within the central nervous system (CNS). This review aimed to synthesize the current literature on the neurophysiological effects of SMT with multiple brain imaging and neurophysiological methods. A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Eight databases were searched for studies using brain imaging techniques (e.g., transcranial magnetic stimulation [TMS], functional magnetic resonance imaging [fMRI] or electroencephalography [EEG]) to assess the impact of SMT on healthy individuals or those with musculoskeletal spine pain. Twenty-six studies were included: eight TMS, seven fMRI, five somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) and six with other imaging methods (e.g., EEG, positron emission tomography [PET] or magnetic resonance spectroscopy [MRS]). Most studies reported significant postintervention neurophysiological changes, particularly in motor cortex excitability (TMS), functional connectivity (fMRI) and sensorimotor integration (SEP). However, heterogeneity in study design, manipulation protocols, imaging outcomes and timing of assessments limited generalizability of the results. Although many studies reported reductions in pain intensity, none of them linked cortical changes directly to clinical improvements. Overall, SMT can induce changes in cortical activity and connectivity, particularly in pain processing and motor control regions. However, significant methodological variation across studies limits the strength of conclusions. Future research should aim for standardized protocols and investigate the clinical significance of neurophysiological changes in large, diverse populations.
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.