Trial reportChiropractic & manual therapies2026
Biomechanical comparison of lumbar rotational manipulations in two different positions using force measurement and finite element analysis.
Trial report in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the biomechanical characteristics of lateral decubitus and sitting lumbar rotational manipulations (LRM) by combining experimental force measurements with finite element analysis (FEA), with a particular focus on regional stress and displacement distributions and areas of stress concentration that may have relevance for future clinical and safety studies.
methodsTwenty healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive either lateral decubitus or sitting LRM. Practitioner-generated forces were recorded using instrumented gloves, and preliminary cluster analysis was performed to explore distinct operational patterns. The measured loading parameters were then used to define the loading conditions in a validated lumbar finite element model to compare stress and displacement distributions in the intervertebral discs and facet cartilage across the two techniques and five clusters.
resultsPreliminary cluster analysis identified two clusters for the lateral decubitus technique (shoulder-hip coordinated and hip-dominant) and three for the sitting technique (shoulder-waist coordinated, shoulder-dominant, and gentle-loading). No significant left-right differences in practitioner-generated forces were observed for the lateral decubitus technique (all P > 0.05). For the sitting technique, the force applied at the shoulder was lower on the left than on the right (62.56 ± 15.58 vs. 77.70 ± 7.72 N; t = -10.088, P < 0.001), whereas the force applied at the waist was higher on the left than on the right [32.80 (27.75-38.20) vs. 26.06 (22.66-33.54) N; Z = 2.129, P = 0.042]. FEA showed distinct mechanical patterns between the two techniques. Across the two lateral decubitus clusters, the maximum intervertebral disc stress ranged from 7.87 to 13.40 MPa and the maximum deformation from 7.22 to 12.31 mm, with the main mechanical effects concentrated at L3/4-L4/5. Across the three sitting clusters, the maximum disc stress ranged from 5.87 to 8.09 MPa and the maximum deformation from 11.68 to 16.44 mm, with greater displacement mainly involving L1/2-L2/3. A similar contrast was observed in the facet cartilage, with the lateral decubitus technique generally producing higher peak stress but lower deformation than the sitting technique.
conclusionLateral decubitus and sitting LRM produced distinct regional biomechanical patterns. Lateral decubitus manipulation was characterized by a higher-stress/lower-displacement profile predominantly involving the lower lumbar spine, whereas sitting manipulation showed a lower-stress/higher-displacement profile with greater involvement of the upper lumbar spine. These findings provide a quantitative biomechanical basis for further investigation of technique-specific loading characteristics, tissue safety, and individualized clinical application. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.