A systematic review of the effectiveness of the use of the Activator Adjusting Instrument in treating spinal pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal pain is commonly encountered by chiropractors and there are several adjustment techniques used to treat spinal pain. Practitioners are required to practice evidence-based chiropractic care in order to best care for their patients and to provide information to guide informed consent. A systematic review provides a well-structured summation and analysis of the available evidence and the effectiveness of the intervention. An analysis would be able to determine the level of evidence in support of the use of the Activator Adjusting Instrument (AAI) in treating spinal pain. The AAI can be used as an adjustment tool (as the AAI technique) outside of the AMCT protocol and the AAI can be used within the AMCT protocol. Both of these uses of the AAI are included in this study. Objectives: The aim of this dissertation was to review published literature regarding the use of the AAI in treating spinal pain. The effectiveness of the use of the AAI in treating spinal pain was evaluated to present current evidence available for its use to treat the different areas of the spine in clinical practice. Method: A literature search was conducted with the following key terms: “Activator”, “Instrument Adjusting”, “Joint Dysfunction”, “Manual Therapy”, “Activator Technique”, “Activator Adjusting” and “Instrument assisted manipulation”. Databases searched were PubMed and Scopus. The articles were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, after which a secondary hand and reference searches were performed. All electronic or paper English articles, which possessed the required key indexing terms, met inclusion and exclusion criteria, and represented randomised controlled study, non-randomised controlled study and observational study designs, were included. Data Collection and Analysis: Blinded review of the articles was then conducted by six independent reviewers, as well as the researcher, utilising the PEDro Scale (for randomised controlled trials), Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for (non-randomised controlled trials) and Liddle Scale (for observational studies). This allowed the methodological rigour of each article to be ranked. The ranking was compared to a critical appraisal of the article in order to achieve an overall decision with regards to the contribution of the article to the level of evidence to use the AAI in treating spinal pain. A total of 23 articles were identified and included in this systematic review. The review and ranking of these articles revealed limited evidence in support of the use of the AAI outside of the AMCT protocol (AAI technique) in the lumbar spine, sacroiliac, and coccygeal regions; however, there was no evidence in support of or against its use in the cervical, thoracic and full spinal regions. There is limited evidence supporting the use of the AAI within the AMCT protocol in treating the cervical spine. There is no evidence supporting or against the use of the AAI within the AMCT protocol for the remaining spinal regions. In the areas where limited evidence is available, spinal pain reduction as a result of the intervention (either AAI technique or AAI within the AMCT protocol) is comparable with the findings of manual manipulation. However, the majority of the spinal regions have no evidence available to base treatment guidelines and informed consent on, in clinical practice. Conclusion: Until further research is conducted surrounding the use of the AAI technique and the AAI within the AMCT protocol in the spinal areas where there is no evidence, practitioners are advised to use the AAI sparingly in these spinal regions, informing the patient of a lack of evidence, until such time as further studies have been carried out that produce reliable and valid evidence in these regions. It is evident that future research is required surrounding the use of the AAI technique as well as the AAI within the AMCT protocol in order for practitioners to apply evidence-based practice and compete informed-consent procedures with patients. Having more evidence in these domains will strengthen the literature and allow for improved clinical decision-making based on evidence that is of high quality and practical value.
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
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 | 0.015 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".