Effectiveness of Thoracic Spine Manipulation for the Management of Neck Pain: A Systematic Umbrella Review with Risk of Bias and Methodological and Reporting Quality

TL;DR

This study reviews the quality of research on thoracic spine manipulation for neck pain, finding limited confidence in the results due to methodological issues.

Contribution

A systematic umbrella review assessing the quality and bias of existing systematic reviews on thoracic spine manipulation for neck pain.

Findings

Seven reviews met inclusion criteria, with mixed risk of bias and reporting quality.

Some evidence supports short-term neck pain improvement with TSM, but confidence is low.

Variability in reporting compliance across included reviews was observed.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The purpose of this umbrella review was to assess the risk of bias and the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews that evaluated the effects of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on individuals with mechanical neck pain. Methods: To be included, publications needed to be systematic reviews including studies with participants with neck pain >18 years old; at least two groups where the experimental intervention was TSM; assessed pain and/or function; and were published in English. Reviews limited to narrative, scoping, or retrospective studies, or those with cervical radiculopathy, were excluded. An electronic search was conducted in May 2025 using PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO Host), and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant articles from inception to May 2025. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020), and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS). Findings were summarized narratively and graphically. Results: Seven reviews (27 unique studies; 1394 participants, aged 18–62 years) met the inclusion criteria. Some evidence supported TSM for short-term improvement in neck pain, but confidence in results was low to critically low based on the AMSTAR 2 results. Four reviews had a high overall risk of bias, and three had a low risk. Reporting compliance varied widely (0–100%). Conclusions: While all the included systematic reviews suggested that TSM is a viable short-term option for individuals with neck pain, the overall confidence in these results ranged from low to critically low, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the true benefit of TSM in clinical practice. Registered prospectively in PROSPERO (CRD420251034330).

Figures