Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
TITLE
A Randomized Clinical Trial of the Relative Effectiveness of Manual Versus Mechanical Force Chiropractic Adjustments in the Management of Sacroiliac Joint Syndrome
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
TITLE
A Randomized Clinical Trial of the Relative Effectiveness of Manual Versus Mechanical Force Chiropractic Adjustments in the Management of Sacroiliac Joint Syndrome
This randomised clinical trial compared two styles of chiropractic adjustment, traditional hands-on manipulation and a mechanical-force, instrument-assisted technique, in 60 patients with sacroiliac joint syndrome, pain arising from the joint linking the spine and pelvis.
What was studied?
60 patients were split evenly between manual adjustment and mechanical-force adjustment, with pain ratings and disability scores measured before and after treatment. The two techniques were then compared head to head.
What did they find?
Both approaches produced substantial, statistically significant improvements. Pain ratings dropped by roughly half in both groups, from around 49 points to about 23, and disability scores improved markedly too. Neither technique outperformed the other.
Why it matters
For sacroiliac joint pain, both hands-on and instrument-assisted adjustment produce comparable, substantial improvement. The choice between techniques can reasonably rest on comfort or preference, rather than one being clearly superior.
Why we included it
It shows that offering a gentler alternative technique does not mean compromising on results, supporting patient choice wherever the evidence shows comparable outcomes between methods.
We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You can choose which categories to allow below. Cookies categorised as Necessary are always active.
We also use third-party cookies for analytics and advertising. These are only stored with your consent. You can update or withdraw consent at any time via the cookie icon at the bottom-left. This site operates under UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR). Cookie Policy • Privacy Policy
Always Active
Necessary cookies are required for core site features including security, network management, and consent storage.
Cookie
Duration
Description
hmdg_cookie_consent
180 days
Stores your cookie consent preferences.
PHPSESSID
Session
WordPress session identifier.
wordpress_logged_in_*
Session
WordPress login authentication.
Functional cookies enable enhanced features such as live chat and remembering preferences.
Cookie
Duration
Description
wp-settings-*
1 year
Stores user interface preferences.
Analytics cookies help us understand visitor behaviour. Controls analytics_storage for Google Analytics 4.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_ga
2 years
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_ga_*
2 years
Google Analytics 4 — session persistence.
_gid
24 hours
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_gat
1 minute
Google Analytics — throttles request rate.
Performance cookies collect aggregate, anonymous data about site performance.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_gat_gtag_*
1 minute
Google Tag Manager — rate throttle.
Marketing cookies track visits to deliver relevant ads. Controls ad_storage, ad_user_data, and ad_personalization.
What was studied?
60 patients were split evenly between manual adjustment and mechanical-force adjustment, with pain ratings and disability scores measured before and after treatment. The two techniques were then compared head to head.
What did they find?
Both approaches produced substantial, statistically significant improvements. Pain ratings dropped by roughly half in both groups, from around 49 points to about 23, and disability scores improved markedly too. Neither technique outperformed the other.
Why it matters
For sacroiliac joint pain, both hands-on and instrument-assisted adjustment produce comparable, substantial improvement. The choice between techniques can reasonably rest on comfort or preference, rather than one being clearly superior.
Why we included it
It shows that offering a gentler alternative technique does not mean compromising on results, supporting patient choice wherever the evidence shows comparable outcomes between methods.