Abstract
Objectives:
To evaluate the methodologic quality of the evidence for the use of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) with and without other therapies in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Design:
A systematic review of the literature.
Participants:
Any participant of a primary research study that investigated the effect of SMT on COPD. Only studies with participants older than age 18 years with an existing diagnosis of COPD were included.
Interventions:
Interventions included any form of high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation with or without other forms of manual therapy, exercise, and/or pharmacologic intervention.
Outcome measures:
Six-minute walking test, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, forced vital capacity, residual volume, total lung capacity, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Results:
Six articles met all of the inclusion criteria and were included in the review: three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one pre–post observational study, one case series, and one single case study. Sample sizes varied from 1 to 33 participants ranging in age from 55 to 85 years. Risk of bias was low for the three RCTs and high for the other studies. All three RCTs used SMT in conjunction with exercise from a pulmonary rehabilitation program. Five of the six studies reported improvements in lung function and exercise performance following SMT intervention.
Conclusions:
This review provides a methodologic evaluation of the evidence for using SMT with and without other therapies in the management of COPD. While the quality of the evidence provided by three RCTs was high, they were all conducted on small sample sizes. These results highlight the need for further research into the use of SMT in conjunction with exercise on people with COPD.
Introduction
C
Nonpharmacologic interventions benefit people with COPD. 6 –10 For example, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is considered to be a well-developed, multidisciplinary approach to managing many extrapulmonary effects associated with COPD. 6 –8 However, PR has little clinical effect on lung function. Similarly, research into the effect of acupuncture has shown that this modality has little effect on long-term lung function despite helping improve dyspnea levels and exercise tolerance. 9,10
One intervention that has the potential to address some of the changes in respiratory mechanics associated with declining lung function in COPD is manual therapy (MT). This intervention covers a range of techniques, including soft tissue therapy and joint mobilization/manipulation. Some evidence suggests that MT has the potential to alter respiratory mechanics in certain chronic respiratory diseases, such as chronic asthma and COPD. These changes include an increase in flexibility of the chest wall and thoracic excursion, which can indirectly lead to an improvement in exercise capacity and lung function. 11,12
A recent systematic review on the use of MT for COPD reported a higher incidence of musculoskeletal pain in patients with COPD compared with the general population (45% and 34%, respectively). 13 While the authors of this review considered the use of MT to increase thoracic mobility, reduce the work of breathing, and manage musculoskeletal pain a reasonable approach to consider for people with COPD, they concluded little evidence supported or refuted its use in the management of COPD. 13 While the review incorporated a range of manual therapies, it specifically excluded studies that used MT intervention with other interventions, such as exercise.
One form of MT is spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which uses a high-velocity, low-amplitude force to move a joint complex. The technique is commonly used by osteopaths, chiropractors, physiotherapists, and physical therapists to decrease pain and increase joint range of motion. 14 –17 However, SMT is often used in conjunction with other interventions. Therefore, excluding studies that combined SMT with another intervention may have altered the outcome of the previous systematic review.
The aim of the current review is to evaluate the methodologic quality of the evidence for the use of SMT in the management of COPD as well as updating the previous systematic review. This review focuses on the effect of SMT when used alone or in combination with other therapies.
Materials and Methods
Design
This article reports on a systematic review of the literature.
Study eligibility criteria
To be included in this review, a study must have been conducted on participants older than age 18 years who had a diagnosis of COPD. MT intervention had to include some form of SMT administered as a stand-alone intervention or in conjunction with another intervention.
Trials had to include at least one lung function measure, such as forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), residual volume (RV), or total lung capacity (TLC). Trials could also include other outcome measures, such as chest wall movement, dyspnea level, exercise capacity, or a patient-reported quality-of-life measure.
All quantitative study designs were accepted for review, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case series, and case studies.
Search
The search was conducted in December 2014 and updated in July 2015. The Medical Subject Heading terms listed in Table 1 were entered into the following databases: MEDLINE/Ovid, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. There was no limit on date of publication, and full texts were required. Citations and reference lists were also used to search for articles.
Study selection
Studies were excluded according to the eligibility criteria listed in Table 2. All articles that met the eligibility criteria were included in this review. Two researchers (C.W. and B.B.) conducted the initial eligibility review.
RCT, randomized controlled trial; TENS, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.
Data collection
Using an adapted Cochrane Review Group standardized data collection form, 18 three reviewers (C.W., S.B., and D.F.) independently extrapolated data from the included trials, such as study design, interventions, randomization and concealment, participant characteristics, methods, statistical analyses used, types of outcome measures, and results. The data were tabulated, and any discrepancies were resolved by discussion at a meeting of these reviewers.
Risk of bias in individual studies
The Cochrane risk of bias tool 19 was applied to the trials included in the review. Each element was assessed as being present, not present, or unclear for each trial. Because of the inclusion of case series, case studies, and pre–post studies, the revised risk of bias table by Viswanathan et al. 20 was also used to evaluate the risk of bias in studies other than RCTs.
Statistical analysis
The homogeneity of the studies was assessed to determine whether pooling of data and meta-analysis would be appropriate.
Results
Study selection
A search of the literature returned 5297 articles, and an additional four articles were recovered from citation tracking of the reference lists. After application of the eligibility criteria, 5291 articles were rejected for the following reasons: They were duplicates, SMT was not an intervention, COPD was not diagnosed, or only the abstract was available. Six articles were retained for review: three RCTs, 21 –23 one pre–post observational study, 24 one case series, 25 and one single case study. 26 All three RCTs were preliminary or pilot trials. 21 –23 Figure 1 shows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram for article selection. 27

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of study selection for review of manual therapy and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 21 HVLA, high-velocity, low-amplitude.
Participant characteristics
Results of the data extraction form are reported in Table 3. The sample sizes from the included trials ranged from 1 to 33. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were adequately reported in the three RCTs and case series but not in the observational and single case studies. Only one RCT matched participants at baseline for age and lung function. 23 Three of the studies 21,22,25 reported adverse events. The age of the participants ranged from 40 to 90 years, and one study did not report age. 24 There were more men in each of the six studies. All three RCTs excluded participants if they could not complete a 6-minute walking test (6MWT).
COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; NR, not reported; T2, second thoracic vertebrae; T3, third thoracic vertebrae; SMT, spinal manipulative therapy; 6MWT, 6-minute walking test; PR, pulmonary rehabilitation; ST, soft tissue therapy; SM, spinal manipulation; GOLD, Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease; OMT, osteopathic manipulative therapy.
Intervention and control groups
Interventions varied across the six included studies. Two studies 23,24 did not report details about intervention other than to refer to it in general terms as “spinal manipulation” or “osteopathic manipulative therapy.” Two of the RCTs 21,22 described the use of a standardized MT protocol that included soft tissue therapy and thoracic SMT. One study 25 included instrument-assisted spinal manipulation. The single case study 26 reported therapy that varied in type and frequency over time. All three RCTs included a control group of sham manipulation or exercise only. The pre–post observational study, case series, and single case study did not include a comparator.
Outcome measures
Outcome measures used and results reported from each of the six studies included in this review are shown in Table 4. All of the trials included FEV1 and FVC as primary outcome measures; two studies 23,24 also included RV and TLC. All three RCTs included a 6MWT to evaluate exercise capacity. Standardized quality-of-life questionnaires, such as the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, or Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale were used in two of the RCTs, 21,22 while the single case study 26 reported patient subjective comments on fatigue and breathlessness over time.
RV, residual volume; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; TLC, total lung capacity; P
Risk of bias
Results from the risk of bias analysis are reported in Table 5. The three RCTs 21 –23 had a low risk of bias. The other three studies 24 –26 had a high risk of bias primarily associated with the study design. There was performance bias in all trials, including the RCTs.
Synthesis of results
Because of the heterogeneous nature of the included trials, pooling of data and meta-analysis of the results were not possible.
Reported results of studies
One RCT plus the observational study 23,24 reported a decrease in RV and an increase in TLC following MT. Two of the RCTs 21,22 reported an increase in FVC in the short and medium term, respectively, in the group receiving MT. The single case study 26 reported similar increases but only in the short term. The three RCTs reported an increase in distance walked (6MWT) in the groups receiving MT, with one 22 also reporting an improvement in dyspnea scores. Quality-of-life scores changed little across all trials. Three studies 21,22,25 reported on adverse events following SMT, describing a small number of minor adverse events and no moderate or severe adverse events. Minor adverse events are described as muscle soreness up to 24 hours after treatment that resolves with no further intervention.
Discussion
This systematic review updates the results from a previous review and is the first to focus on evidence of the effect of administering SMT in conjunction with other interventions in the management of COPD. Improvements in lung function (increases in FEV1 and FVC; decrease in RV) and exercise capacity (increase in 6MWT) were reported in three RCTs following a combination of SMT and exercise. While these findings were recorded in pilot and preliminary trials, they represent preliminary evidence that the combination of SMT with exercise may be more beneficial to people with COPD than exercise or SMT alone. Furthermore, the results provide additional information to the review by Heneghan and colleagues; however, the findings of this review contrast with the earlier conclusion that no evidence supported or refuted the use of MT on patients with COPD. 13
While performance bias was present in all of the studies included in this review, it was the result of the difficulty in blinding the therapists who provided SMT intervention. Thus, it should be interpreted in light of the general difficulty in finding a suitable sham intervention for SMT. Setting this aside, the level of bias in the three RCTs was low, confirming that their designs were satisfactory.
The reduction in RV and increase in FVC resulting from SMT intervention may be the mechanism underlying the delay in the onset of exercise-limiting dyspnea. The suggestion that this leads to the reported improvements in exercise capacity is plausible because the onset of dyspnea is the primary cause for exercise cessation in COPD. 21 –23 This is supported in principle by Heneghan et al., who stated that using MT to increase thoracic mobility in an effort to reduce the work of breathing was a reasonable approach to consider. 13
The three studies that recorded adverse events following MT 21,22,25 reported similar rates of mild adverse events. A mild adverse event consisted of muscle soreness that resolved within 48 hours without the need for further medical treatment. This included the two studies that used a predetermined MT protocol consisting of soft tissue therapy and thoracic SMT. 21,22 No moderate or severe adverse events following any type of SMT intervention were reported in these studies
This review had several methodologic limitations. These include the small number of studies, the sample size in each of the studies, variation in participant characteristics and SMT intervention across studies, and that the cohorts may not be representative of the general population of people with COPD. These limitations notwithstanding, the review highlights the potential of SMT to benefit people with COPD.
In conclusion, this appears to be the first systematic review to investigate the evidence for administering SMT in conjunction with other modalities, such as exercise, on people with COPD. The exclusion of such combinations may explain the disparity in findings between this review and the review by Heneghan et al., who found no evidence to support or refute the use of MT in the management of COPD. The importance of increasing exercise capacity even by indirect methods such as increasing thoracic mobility should not be underestimated because exercise capacity is a predictor of mortality in COPD. As PR does not improve lung function, the current findings may have wider implications if repeated in a larger cohort. The results of this systematic review support the recommendation for further research in the field, in particular a larger RCT designed to investigate the effect of combining SMT with exercise.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Ms. Hazel Jenkins for assisting in the design and editing of the project and the Department of Chiropractic at Macquarie University for in-kind support for this project. No funding was required for this study.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
