Ottenbacher K, DiFabio R P
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1985 Nov;10(9):833-7. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198511000-00010.
A quantitative review (meta-analysis) was undertaken to synthesize existing evidence on the efficacy of joint mobilization and manipulation and expose consumers of rehabilitation research to the methods and procedures of quantitative reviewing. Potentially relevant studies were obtained through a computer-assisted bibliographic search of the Index Medicus data base and through examination of references contained in retrieved studies. A total of 57 titles were potentially relevant to manipulation/mobilization, but only nine met the prespecified criteria for inclusion in the quantitative review. Data analysis indicated that studies not employing random assignment were more likely to produce results supporting the use of manipulation/mobilization therapies. The effects in favor of manipulation and mobilization were greater when manual therapy was provided in conjunction with other forms of treatment and were also greater when the treatment effects were measured immediately following therapy. In addition, hypotheses tests appearing in journals published in the United States showed manipulation/mobilization less effective in comparison with reports appearing in English language journals published outside the United States. The results provided only limited empirical support for spinal mobilization and manipulation when used to treat pain, flexibility limitations, and impairment in physical activity.
进行了一项定量综述（荟萃分析），以综合现有关于关节松动术和整复术疗效的证据，并让康复研究的受众了解定量综述的方法和程序。通过对医学索引数据库进行计算机辅助书目检索以及检查检索到的研究中包含的参考文献，获取了可能相关的研究。共有57篇标题可能与整复术/松动术相关，但只有9篇符合纳入定量综述的预先设定标准。数据分析表明，未采用随机分配的研究更有可能得出支持使用整复术/松动术疗法的结果。当手法治疗与其他形式的治疗相结合时，对整复术和松动术的效果更显著，并且在治疗后立即测量治疗效果时效果也更显著。此外，美国出版的期刊上出现的假设检验表明，与美国以外出版的英文期刊上的报告相比，整复术/松动术的效果较差。当用于治疗疼痛、灵活性受限和身体活动障碍时，这些结果仅为脊柱松动术和整复术提供了有限的实证支持。
