Spinal mobilization characteristics: a scoping literature review of biomechanical parameters.

Background Spinal mobilization (SMob) is often included in the conservative management of spinal pain conditions as a recommended and effective treatment. While some studies quantify the biomechanical (kinetic) parameters of SMob, interpretation of findings is difficult due to poor reporting of methodological details. The aim of this study was to synthesise the literature describing biomechanical parameters of manually applied SMob. Methods This study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. Databases were searched from inception to October 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted and reported descriptively for the following domains: general study characteristics, number of and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received SMob, region treated, equipment used and biomechanical parameters of SMob. Results Of 7,607 records identified, 36 (0.5%) were included in the analysis. Of these, SMob was delivered to the cervical spine in 13 (36.1%), the thoracic spine in 3 (8.3%) and the lumbopelvic spine in 18 (50.0%) studies. In 2 (5.6%) studies, spinal region was not specified. For SMob applied to all spinal regions, biomechanical parameters were: peak force (0-128N); duration (10-120s); frequency (0.1-4.5Hz); and force amplitude (1-102N). Conclusions This study reports considerable variability of the biomechanical parameters of SMob. In studies reporting biomechanical parameters, SMob was most frequently delivered to the lumbar and cervical spine of humans and most commonly peak force was reported. Future studies should focus on the detailed reporting of biomechanical parameters to facilitate the investigation of clinical dose-response effects.

In order to manage the substantial volume of data presented in this study, the following decisions were 183 made regarding how to best report the data:: i) for studies reporting forces measured in 3-dimensions 184 (3D) and including the resultant forces (i.e. the total forces applied), only the resultant forces are 185 reported; ii) for studies measuring forces applied in 3D but not including the resultant forces, only the 186 forces measured in the primary direction of the applied force are reported in the tables (e.g. for prone 187 PA thoracic SMob, the vertical forces are reported). Regarding the reporting of metrological data, a 188 consensus was reached by two authors (LG and MD) as to whether adequate information was provided.

189
In cases where metrological details were discussed (e.g. it was stated that measurement equipment 190 accuracy was good) but it was not clear if this statement was based on data (or what data), this was 191 recorded as metrological details were not provided. No assessment of study quality was performed.

194
The electronic searches returned 7,607 records, with 3,981 unique records remaining after de-195 duplication (n=3,626) ( Figure 1). Following title/abstract screening, 247 full-texts were screened. Of 196 these, 146 reports were excluded (e.g. did not report biomechanical parameters: 56), leaving 101 197 included studies. Of these, 36 reported on SMob and were included in the analysis. A list of these studies 198 is provided in S2 Appendix and the reference number cited in the tables refers to this list.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 23, 2023. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 23, 2023.

234
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 23, 2023.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 23, 2023.     to SMob, existing also for interventions including SM (SM manuscript under peer-review) and dry . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 23, 2023.

329
It has been reported that biomechanical parameters of SMob (e.g. peak force and force amplitude) differ 330 between students and experienced clinicians (45). Specifically, students apply less force, more slowly.

331
Similar differences are also reported in the SM literature (51), further suggesting that the detailed 332 reporting of the clinical experience of the individual delivering the intervention is necessary.

333
Furthermore, Gorgos and colleagues reported on the reliability of inter-clinician and intra-clinician 334 forces applied during joint mobilisation in a systematic review (52). The authors concluded that while . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 23, 2023.

388
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 23, 2023. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 23, 2023. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 23, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.20.23292952 doi: medRxiv preprint methodological review revealed that reporting of trials in manual therapy has not improved over . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 23, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.20.23292952 doi: medRxiv preprint