Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of findings for the review’s main comparison

From: Spinal manipulations for migraine: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

SMT with or without usual care compared to (least active) control for the treatment of migraines

Patient or population: migraineurs (all types)

Setting: secondary care

Intervention: SMT (with or without usual care)

Comparison: (least active) control

Outcomes

No. of participants (studies) Follow-up

Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)

Relative effect (95% CI)

Anticipated absolute effects

Risk with (least active) control

Risk difference with SMT

Migraine days post-treatment

472 (4 RCTs)

Very lowa,b,c

SMD 0.24 lower (0.47 lower to 0.02 lower)

Migraine duration post-treatment

312 (4 RCTs)

Very lowa,b,c

SMD 0.11 lower (0.33 lower to 0.12 higher)

Intensity/severity post-treatment: measured with VAS scales

509 (6 RCTs)

Very lowa,b,c,d

SMD 0.22 SD lower (0.65 lower to 0.21 higher)

Disability: measured with MIDAS

234 (3 RCTs)

Very lowa,b,c

SMD 0.27 lower

(0.54 lower to 0.01 lower)

Emotional QOL: measured with SF-36

111 (2 RCTs)

Very lowa,b,e

SMD 14.47 lower (31.61 lower to 2.68 higher)

Adverse effects

764 (2 RCTs)

Very lowa,b,c,d

RR 2.06 (1.24 to 3.41)

113 per 1000

208 more per 1000 (102 more to 368 more)

  1. CI confidence interval, MIDAS Migraine Disability Assessment, QOL quality of life, RCT randomized controlled trial, RR risk ratio, SF-36 short form 36 questionnaire, SMD standardized mean difference, SMT spinal manipulative therapy, VAS visual analogue scale
  2. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  3. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  4. aUnclear or high risk of bias of the included studies
  5. bClinical and methodological heterogeneity in terms of population, intervention, comparator
  6. cWide confidence intervals around the effect estimate
  7. dSignificant statistical heterogeneity detected
  8. eVery small sample size; wide confidence intervals around the effect estimate