Manipulation Versus Mobilization for Spine: a Systemic Review

Objectives: Objectives of the performed meta- analysis is to reaffirm the efficacy of manipulation and mobilisation and also compare between the two that which has been giving evidence based results, otherwise shown statistically significant results in randomised controlled trials and lastly to give a clear picture of manual therapy which should be applied clinically for future significant findings. Method: Spine, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, American Journal of public health, The Spine Journal, Clinical Biomechanics, Journal of American physical therapy association, Journal Of Musculoskeletal Pain were searched for the period of 1992 to 2010. Data was extracted and assessed for methodologic quality. Pooled effects were calculated among homogenious trials using random effects model. Studies on efficacy of mobilization and manipulation on mechanical disorders of spine were included. Results: 18 trials of high quality are included. Out of 18, in 1 trial mobilization and manipulation when given in conjunction with exercise was beneficial than exercise alone, in 10 trials manipulation gave better results, in 2 trials manipulation and mobilization when given to thoracic region cured cervical radiculopathy, 2 trials showed that both manipulation and mobilization gave beneficial results, 2 trials showed that mobilization is better than then manipulation and 1 trial evaluated negative results from both the manual therapy techniques. Conclusion: There is some evidence that when mobilization and manipulation are given along with conventional therapy or individually have been proven beneficial so clinically worthwhile efforts are anticipated.