PTRCTBrazilian journal of physical therapy2018

Effect of sacroiliac manipulation on postural sway in quiet standing: a randomized controlled trial.

Mohammad Reza Farazdaghi, Alireza Motealleh, Forough Abtahi and 3 others

PMID 28993042

WHAT IT FOUND

Sacroiliac manipulation did not show a clear balance benefit over sham.

Some forward-backward sway measures differed between groups, but the overall pattern was mixed.

Key findings

01Table 2 reports a significant adjusted mean difference for anterior-posterior trembling frequency (p = 0.00) and velocity (p = 0.03).

02No interaction effects were detected for any rambling, trembling, or center-of-pressure parameter, and no significant differences were found in the medial-lateral direction.

03Significant within-group differences were detected only in the manipulation group for anterior-posterior trembling frequency and velocity.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study analysed 32 patients, although 78 were initially recruited. Sacroiliac dysfunction was confirmed by physical tests rather than injection, because most patients declined injection. Pain and function were not measured after intervention, although patients reported pain reduction. Balance was tested only with eyes open on a firm surface, not under challenging sensory or motor conditions. The trial measured short-term post-manipulation effects, not long-term follow-up. The results text contains contradictory statements about interaction effects in the anterior-posterior direction.

Declared interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that sacroiliac manipulation reliably improves balance. The trial found some anterior-posterior trembling differences, but no interaction effects, no medial-lateral differences, and contradictory reporting.

Read it on PubMed →