Trial reportPloS one2026
Short-term subjective and EEG responses following cervical rotatory manipulation are not reproduced by simulated cracking sound: A randomized controlled study.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical rotatory manipulation (CRM) is commonly used for neck-related symptoms and is often accompanied by a cracking sound. Whether a simulated cracking sound can reproduce the short-term subjective and neurophysiological responses to the complete CRM remains unclear.
objectiveThis study compared short-term subjective and electroencephalography (EEG) responses to CRM with those following sham manipulation with or without a simulated cracking sound.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial with three parallel groups and a single intervention session, 54 healthy volunteers were allocated to CRM, sham manipulation, or sham + simulated sound. Positive affect, negative affect, comfort, satisfaction, and eyes closed resting state EEG were assessed before and after the intervention. Prespecified EEG derived outcomes included frontal alpha power, frontal alpha/beta ratio, occipital individual alpha frequency, and alpha band frontoparietal and frontotemporal functional connectivity.
resultsCRM produced greater improvements in positive affect, comfort, and satisfaction than sham manipulation or sham + simulated cracking sound, whereas no clear difference among groups was observed for negative affect. Differences among groups were also observed in frontal alpha/beta ratio and alpha band frontoparietal and frontotemporal functional connectivity. Sham + simulated sound did not reproduce the overall pattern of subjective and EEG responses observed after CRM.
conclusionsCRM produced greater improvements over the short-term in positive affect, comfort, and satisfaction and was accompanied by differences in selected resting state EEG outcomes compared with sham manipulation with or without simulated cracking sound. Adding simulated cracking sound to sham manipulation did not reproduce this pattern. Because CRM differed from the control conditions in several procedural components, the specific component or combination of components responsible for these differences could not be determined.
trial registrationThe trial was registered with the International Traditional Medicine Clinical Trial Registry (URL: https://itmctr.ccebtcm.org.cn; ITMCTR2025001112).
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.