Autonomic nervous system and endocrine system response to upper and lower cervical spine mobilization in healthy male adults: a randomized crossover trial.
Gerard Farrell, Matthew Reily-Bell, Cathy Chapple and 6 others
PMID 36794952WHAT IT FOUND
Lower cervical mobilisation lowered salivary cortisol over 30 minutes in healthy young men, and cortisol at 30 minutes differed between upper and lower cervical techniques.
Heart rate variability barely changed. Twenty men, no control group: mechanism, not proof it helps patients.
Key findings
01Salivary cortisol fell significantly in the 30 minutes after lower cervical mobilisation, but not after upper cervical mobilisation, and the two techniques did not differ before the technique or five minutes after it.
02At 30 minutes the two techniques differed significantly in salivary cortisol, with a lower median after upper cervical mobilisation (0.163) than after lower cervical mobilisation (0.194).
03Heart rate variability did not change significantly in the clinic after either technique. The only home finding was a significant fall in rMSSD the morning after upper cervical mobilisation, from a median of 70.398 to 61.183 ms, which did not differ between groups.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was set up to detect a large effect, but the effect it actually found was moderate, so a real difference could have been missed. The authors say this themselves. Only 20 people were tested, and cortisol and heart rate variability varied a lot between them, which makes a single significant result at one timepoint easier to produce by chance. Everyone was a healthy man aged 21 to 35 who was not stressed, so the results say nothing about your patients with persistent pain, illness or a disrupted stress response. Women were excluded entirely. There was no sham or control group, so it is impossible to know whether the cortisol change came from the mobilisation or from lying still, being in the clinic, or simply time passing. The authors state that testing efficacy was not the aim. The conditions were tightly controlled to keep the physiology clean, which the authors say limits how far the findings apply outside that room. The data were not normally distributed, so the researchers could not test whether the two techniques and the passage of time interacted. Only one measure was significant on the between-group comparison at 30 minutes, and it pointed in the opposite direction to the within-group result reported for lower cervical mobilisation, which makes the finding hard to interpret. In a crossover trial this small, a carryover effect from the first session into the second is possible, although the authors report their checks ruled this out.
Declared interests
The work was supported by the Stanley Paris PhD OMT Scholarship and the Mark Steptoe Memorial Trust Fund. The declaration supplied lists no other funding or competing interests.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that choosing between upper and lower cervical mobilisation lets you steer a patient's stress hormones. The trial had only 20 healthy, unstressed young men and no sham or control group, the authors state that testing efficacy was not the aim, it was powered for a large effect that turned out moderate, and the significant cortisol difference appeared at a single 30-minute timepoint while the overnight measure showed nothing.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →