This scoping review examined how adverse events after spinal and joint manipulation have been defined and classified in the literature, drawing on 98 studies published between 1993 and 2021, focused on consistency in terminology rather than how often events occur.
What was studied?
The review checked whether 98 studies on manipulation and mobilisation agreed on a definition of an adverse event and how to classify its severity, rather than measuring how often such events actually happened.
What did they find?
There is no agreed standard for defining an adverse event: 69 of the 98 studies gave a direct definition, 29 only implied one, and severity classification varied widely. The review concluded that clearer, more consistent reporting standards are needed.
Why it matters
Safety figures quoted from one study do not always mean the same thing as those from another, since definitions differ so widely. Comparing risk statistics directly can be misleading without checking what each study counted.
Why we included it
It illustrates a wider theme: safety statistics are not automatically comparable across studies, which is why individual risks and benefits are best discussed in person rather than reduced to one quoted figure.
Help us improve your experience (and hopefully your back).
We use cookies to improve the website and show relevant content to people interested in our services.
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?
The review checked whether 98 studies on manipulation and mobilisation agreed on a definition of an adverse event and how to classify its severity, rather than measuring how often such events actually happened.
What did they find?
There is no agreed standard for defining an adverse event: 69 of the 98 studies gave a direct definition, 29 only implied one, and severity classification varied widely. The review concluded that clearer, more consistent reporting standards are needed.
Why it matters
Safety figures quoted from one study do not always mean the same thing as those from another, since definitions differ so widely. Comparing risk statistics directly can be misleading without checking what each study counted.
Why we included it
It illustrates a wider theme: safety statistics are not automatically comparable across studies, which is why individual risks and benefits are best discussed in person rather than reduced to one quoted figure.