PURPOSE: Background: Evaluate whether the design of placebo control groups could produce different interpretations of the efficacy of manual therapy techniques. METHODS: Nine databases were searched (EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS, WEB of SCIENCE, COCHRANE, and PEDro). Randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials that used manual therapy as a sham treatment on subjects suffering from pain were included. Data were summarized qualitatively, and meta-analyses were conducted with R. RESULTS: 53 articles were included in the qualitative analysis and 48 were included in the quantitative analyses. Manipulation techniques did not show higher effectiveness when compared with all types of sham groups that were analyzed (SMD 0.28; 95%CI [-0.24; 0.80]) (SMD 0.28; 95%CI [-0.08; 0.64]) (SMD 0.42; 95%CI [0.16; 0.67]) (SMD 0.82; 95%CI [-0.57; 2.21]), raising doubts on their therapeutic effect. Factors such as expectations of treatment were not consistently evaluated, and analysis could help clarify the effect of different sham groups. As for soft tissue techniques, the results are stronger in favor of these techniques when compared to sham control groups (SMD 0.40; 95%CI [0.19, 0.61]). Regarding mobilization techniques and neural gliding techniques, not enough studies were found for conclusions to be made. CONCLUSIONS: The literature presents a lack of a unified placebo control group design for each technique and an absence of assessment of expectations. These two issues might account for the unclear results obtained in the analysis.