Manipulative and Multimodal Therapy for Upper Extremity and Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to complete a systematic review of manual and manipulative therapy (MMT) for common upper extremity pain and disorders including the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the Cumulative Index of Nursing Allied Health Literature, PubMed, Manual, Alternative, and Natural Therapy Index System (MANTIS), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, Google Scholar, and hand search inclusive of literature from January 1983 to March 5, 2012. Search limits included the English language and human studies along with MeSH terms such as manipulation, chiropractic, osteopathic, orthopedic, and physical therapies. Inclusion criteria required an extremity peripheral diagnosis (for upper extremity problems including the elbow, wrist, hand, finger and the (upper quadrant) temporomandibular joint) and MMT with or without multimodal therapy. Studies were assessed using the PEDro scale in conjunction with modified guidelines and systems. After synthesis and considered judgment scoring was complete, evidence grades of "A, B, C and I" were applied. RESULTS: Out of 764 citations reviewed, 129 studies were deemed possibly to probably useful and/or relevant to develop expert consensus. Out of 81 randomized controlled or clinical trials, 35 were included. Five controlled or clinical trials were located and 4 were included. Fifty case series, reports and/or single-group pre-test post-test prospective case series were located with 32 included. There is Fair (B) level of evidence for MMT to specific joints and the full kinetic chain combined generally with exercise and/or multimodal therapy for lateral epicondylopathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, and temporomandibular joint disorders, in the short term. CONCLUSION: The information from this study will help guide practitioners in the use of MMT, soft tissue technique, exercise, and/or multimodal therapy for the treatment of a variety of upper extremity complaints in the context of the hierarchy of published and available evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| grok | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".