Content uploaded by Amy Louise Haas Ph D - D C
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Amy Louise Haas Ph D - D C on May 08, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Christopher Kent
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christopher Kent on Mar 18, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review began 02/05/2024
Review ended 03/15/2024
Published 03/15/2024
© Copyright 2024
Haas et al. This is an open access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0.,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original author and source are credited.
Vertebral Subluxation and Systems Biology: An
Integrative Review Exploring the Salutogenic
Influence of Chiropractic Care on the
Neuroendocrine-Immune System
Amy Haas , Jonathan Chung , Christopher Kent , Brooke Mills , Matthew McCoy
1. Research, Foundation for Vertebral Subluxation, Kennesaw, USA 2. Research, Sherman College, Spartanburg, USA
Corresponding author: Amy Haas, path.of.life.chiropractic@gmail.com
Abstract
In this paper we synthesize an expansive body of literature examining the multifaceted influence of
chiropractic care on processes within and modulators of the neuroendocrine-immune (NEI) system, for the
purpose of generating an inductive hypothesis regarding the potential impacts of chiropractic care on
integrated physiology. Taking a broad, interdisciplinary, and integrative view of two decades of research-
documented outcomes of chiropractic care, inclusive of reports ranging from systematic and meta-analysis
and randomized and observational trials to case and cohort studies, this review encapsulates a rigorous
analysis of research and suggests the appropriateness of a more integrative perspective on the impact of
chiropractic care on systemic physiology. A novel perspective on the salutogenic, health-promoting effects
of chiropractic adjustment is presented, focused on the improvement of physical indicators of well-being
and adaptability such as blood pressure, heart rate variability, and sleep, potential benefits that may be
facilitated through multiple neurologically mediated pathways. Our findings support the biological
plausibility of complex benefits from chiropractic intervention that is not limited to simple
neuromusculoskeletal outcomes and open new avenues for future research, specifically the exploration and
mapping of the precise neural pathways and networks influenced by chiropractic adjustment.
Categories: Preventive Medicine, Integrative/Complementary Medicine, Health Policy
Keywords: evidence informed practice, chiropractic adjustment, adaptability, salutogenesis, integrative physiology,
chiropractic care, vertebral subluxation
Introduction And Background
A primary function of the human body is to adapt to its environment in order to survive and propagate the
species. The process of adaptation requires a patent neurological capacity to (1) rapidly and accurately sense
threats to or changes in the body’s internal and external environments; (2) integrate multiple forms of
sensory0 information; and (3) execute a coherent, physiologically coordinated and temporally appropriate
multi-system response. The human nervous system must, therefore, be capable of sensitively perceiving and
accurately integrating all forms of information from its environment including physical changes, chemical
changes, or emotional/social challenges, as it continually assesses and overcomes potential threats [1].
Further, it must also be capable of generating a coordinated response via a symphony of body systems,
promoting coherent maintenance of adaptation within the body’s dynamic equilibrium and safeguarding the
body’s ability to thrive under diverse circumstances [2,3].
Integrative systems biology, or integrative physiology [4], is the study of coordinated responses from
functionally coupled systems such as the nervous system, the endocrine system, and the immune system,
which reciprocally influence one another [5-8]. The growth in the body of research outlining the
connections between these subsystems has been exponential in the past century, and has overcome the
now-historical notion that the central nervous system (CNS) is “immunologically pristine” and separated
from the immune system [9,10]. While the relationship between the nervous and endocrine systems has long
been accepted [11], current research has elucidated and defined numerous physical and functional conduits
by which the nervous system and immune system interact and achieve coherent synergy. These conduits
include direct interface of the immune system with both the sympathetic and parasympathetic divisions of
the autonomic nervous system [5,12-14], direct innervation and control of immune structures, including
neural circuits that directly modulate antigen flow through lymph nodes [5,15,16], bidirectional interactions
at the dural neuro-immune interface within the CNS [10], and shared modulation by neurotransmitters,
neuropeptides, hormones, and other small molecule messengers [17-19]. Current hypotheses in the field of
neuroendocrine immunology hold that neuroimmune circuits may also mediate and modulate inter-organ
communication, thereby serving as the primary conductor in the coordination of human physiology as a
whole [20]. In the neuroendocrine-immune (NEI) system, each of the three component arms - nervous
system, immune system, and endocrine system - modulates one another via multiple means of “crosstalk,”
in order to achieve synergistic and integrated physiological changes and coordinated adaptation to an
environmental stressor.
This growing body of research on the reciprocal nature of communication between the subsystems of the
1 1 2, 1 1 1
Open Access Review
Article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.56223
How to cite this article
Haas A, Chung J, Kent C, et al. (March 15, 2024) Vertebral Subluxation and Systems Biology: An Integrative Review Exploring the Salutogenic
Influence of Chiropractic Care on the Neuroendocrine-Immune System. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223
NEI supersystem underscores the importance of integrative physiology research [21]. Understanding the
coordinated synergy between these systems is critical for an appreciation of how the human body functions
as a whole: one must maintain an appreciation that an input that affects one subsystem would be naturally
expected to impact or elicit a coordinated adaptive response from related subsystems. In the nascent
exploration of integrative biology, considering and examining global, multi-system responses resulting from
any impetus to each subsystem is not only appropriate, but it is also requisite.
In its varied forms, physical healthcare utilizes numerous approaches intended to improve and support
human adaptation and life. These approaches include interventions that range from preventive care to
emergency intervention, and from drug/surgical treatment to “holistic” interventions that include nutrition
and exercise [22]. Common to many healthcare approaches is the concept that with one specific and directed
intervention, changes in multiple physiologic systems beyond the one originally targeted can be observed,
given the interconnected nature of the body’s component systems [23]. As the field of dynamical systems
biology rapidly develops, practitioners across many healthcare disciplines are paying heed to interrelated
interventional effects, both direct and indirect, with an eye towards truly integrative and collaborative
healthcare.
Chiropractic care is a profession dedicated to the conservative, non-surgical care of the spine by way of
spinal adjustment, with the goal of improving spinal structure and function in order to support the body’s
natural ability to heal itself [24]. Within the field of chiropractic spinal care, a chasm exists between
practitioners who consider benefits limited to neuromusculoskeletal (NMS) effects, and practitioners who
hold that effects of the chiropractic adjustment supersede NMS outcomes [25]. The latter subset of
chiropractors address the spine specifically to locate and correct the vertebral subluxation (VS), which is
thought to introduce interference to afferent and/or efferent flow within the nervous system, thereby
evoking peripheral physiological maladaptations [26,27]. Correction of VS is held to promote salutogenesis,
defined as the creation or restoration, promotion, and maintenance of well-being, adaptability, and
resilience in the face of challenge [28]. Salutogenesis is manifested physically by the enhancement of
coordinated adaptation of integrated body systems thereby mitigating the effects of allostatic load [28,29].
Herein, we explore integrative physiology outcomes indicative of enhancement of physical well-being in
chiropractic research in order to elucidate a body of evidence demonstrating that this ostensibly NMS-
directed intervention elicits adaptive salutogenic change from multiple systems. It should be noted that an
exploration of the impact of a physical interventional approach on interconnected physiologic systems is
not exclusive to the field of chiropractic care. This concept has been approached in related fields, including
osteopathy and acupuncture [30-36]. While the precise mode of physical intervention and philosophical
intent clearly differs amongst these disciplines, the fields of chiropractic care, osteopathy, and acupuncture
share a commonality: each represents an NMS intervention that evokes somatosensory and/or autonomic
input to the CNS, that may result in changes to both NMS outcomes and additional integrative physiology
outcomes that are not categorized as NMS. Therefore these allied fields may be considered together as a
genre, under a hypothesis that neural input from diverse physical or manual stimuli may lead to multiple
outcomes in an integrative physiology-centric model. From the perspective of the chiropractic profession,
the nature of the NMS input generated or modulated by the chiropractic adjustment is of both theoretical
and practical importance: whether the adjustment has strictly local NMS effects, or if VS and adjustment
thereof have afferent and/or efferent impacts with resultant adaptive change in integrated physiology
outcomes, is at the center of a longstanding debate. A consideration of the integrative physiology outcomes
of chiropractic care for VS that supersede NMS outcomes observed with spinal manipulation is consistent
with established findings from related fields, and opens greater possibilities for research on multi-system
and salutogenic outcomes of chiropractic care.
Evidence-based healthcare is defined as a process of integrating clinical expertise in the form of critical
reasoning (acquired through training and professional experience) with unique client perspectives and
needs, and weighing these factors with the best available evidence in published scientific literature to
execute clinical decision-making [37]. Such evidence is traditionally categorized within a hierarchical
continuum, ranging from meta-analyses (highest) to expert opinion (lowest) [38]. The more traditional
approach of evidence-based care prioritizes and/or limits patient care recommendations to be based on
conclusions gleaned only from the upper echelons of this hierarchy (randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and
higher); however, sometimes RCTs are not feasible, and practical application of RCTs to personalized
recommendations may or may not be possible, as distinctions may exist between idealized trial cohorts and
actual clinical presentations that limit comparability [39-41]. As Daramola and Rhee state in their essay for
the AMA Journal of Ethics, “One must be careful not to adopt an inflexible approach of only applying
recommendations of greater strength. The practice of evidence-based medicine is not 'cookbook' medicine,
and therefore the basis for patient care decisions should not be restricted to randomized trials or meta-
analyses” [42,43]. Evidence-informed practice (EIP) was conceptualized as an update to the historical
evidence-based practice (EBP) model, in order to consider evidence along the entire continuum, and is
inclusive of observational, cohort, and case reports as evidence to be considered in the clinical decision-
making process [40,44,45]. The decision of whether to adopt an evidence-based or an evidence-informed
scope of practice is a point of paramount significance for how chiropractors are allowed by regulatory
agencies to practice, in North America and worldwide. To this end, the present broad-sweep integrative
review was conducted to compile and discuss multiple levels of evidence for a variety of salutogenic
integrative physiology outcomes for chiropractic care, including not only RCTs but also quantitative
observational, cohort, and case-study evidence, using keywords for well-characterized NEI modulators, in
order to empower the practice of evidence-informed chiropractic care.
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 2 of 39
Towards greater recognition of all levels of evidence
We present here a compiled database of diverse physiological outcomes reported with chiropractic care,
inclusive of diverse methodologies of quantitative and objective evidence, that supports the application of
chiropractic adjustment for the promotion of optimal health and function (salutogenesis). The results of
these searches are considered in light of the growing field of integrative physiology, and we present several
biologically plausible mechanisms that may explain the salutogenic outcomes observed for chiropractic care.
The contents of this work may inform the chiropractic field practitioner of multiple levels and types of
evidence to be considered in their evidence-informed clinical decision-making process, and may also inform
future research agendas for the chiropractic profession.
Review
Literature search: Methods
The survey of literature was limited to a search of two databases, PubMed (Medline) and Index to
Chiropractic Literature (ICL), for the sake of feasibility. Keywords “Chiropractic” or “Spinal Manipulation,”
both of which are commonly used in the research literature to describe chiropractic care as a genre, were
cross-referenced with the following keywords or terms (Table 1):
Autoimmune Blood pressure Cortisol Cytokine
Heart Rate Variability Immune/Immunity Interferon Interleukin
Sleep Substance P Transforming Growth Factor Tumor Necrosis Factor
TABLE 1: Keyword search terms
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria include both keywords searched, peer-reviewed, published level VIII and stronger
evidence, narrative reviews, quantitative evidence, and publications from 2000 to 2022. Excluded criteria
consist of expert opinion (level IX evidence), poster presentations/abstracts, animal studies, null studies or
qualitative evidence, and publications from 1999 and prior.
Entries were accepted for further assessment if they contained either “spinal manipulation” or
“chiropractic” in conjunction with one of the 12 keywords in Table 1. Using Stony Brook University Library’s
Levels of Evidence pyramid level VIII or higher evidence was accepted for further assessment. In this
hierarchy, Level VIII comprises evidence from non-RCTs, non-randomized clinical trials, cohort studies,
case series, case reports, and individual qualitative studies. The next higher level, Level VI, comprises
randomized clinical trials, and levels V and higher are meta- and systematic analyses of RCTs. Level IX,
expert opinion, was excluded in our search due to the lack of original and/or quantitative data intrinsic to
these reports.
Figure 1 presents the flowchart of the selection process.
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 3 of 39
FIGURE 1: Flowchart representing literature search
A total of 1410 references were identified via database searches of PubMed (M EDLINE) and ICL (Index to
Chiropractic Literature). After the removal of duplicates and screening of titles and abstracts using
inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the addition of six records identified from direct journal s earching, a total of 142
records were sought for retrieval. Nine papers were excluded by mutual agreement (A. Haas and J. Chung) as
follows: two papers did not offer quantitative o utcomes measures; one paper did not clear ly include chiropractic
adjustment or manipulation in their methods ; six papers did not report statistically signific ant changes and
therefore did not meet inclusion criteria. The resultant final database contains 133 referenc es mutually agreed
upon by two investigators (A. Haas and J. C hung) as meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the present study.
Each keyword search was performed using Advance Search Modality (PubMed) or Advanced Search Builder
(ICL). Date parameters were set to 2000 through the end of 2022; literature published prior to 2000 was
excluded, since these data would be expected to be included in reviews and meta-analyses falling within the
date range selected. All searches were completed in January 2023. The identified references were exported in
separate batches, per keyword and either Chiropractic or Spinal Manipulation to compile the preliminary
dataset in Table 2.
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 4 of 39
Keyword Chiropractic Spinal manipulation Total references per batch
PubMed ICL PubMed ICL
Autoimmune 35 14 26 1 76
Blood Pressure 71 74 78 26 249
Cortisol 7 10 10 4 31
Cytokine 29 5 69 29 110
HRV or Heart Rate Variability 27 53 30 23 133
Immune or Immunity 93 94 84 55 326
Interferon 6 2 8 2 18
Interleukin 18 9 29 10 66
Sleep 87 152 33 27 299
Substance P 5 0 13 0 18
TGF or Transforming Growth Factor 4 1 8 1 15
TNF or Tumor Necrosis Factor 14 16 25 15 70
TOTAL 1410
TABLE 2: Preliminary dataset, records identified via PubMed and ICL (Index to Chiropractic
Literature) keyword searches (includes duplicates)
Keyword batches were then merged (ex., “chiropractic” and “autoimmune” PubMed search results were
merged with “chiropractic” and “autoimmune” ICL search results) and 985 duplicate entries were
removed. A preliminary screen for inclusion/exclusion criteria was then performed on the remaining 423
records based on article titles and abstracts for each keyword batch and 282 records were excluded.
The resultant batches per keyword for “Chiropractic” and “Spinal Manipulation” were then merged to create
a final list of records per keyword. Six articles were added to this database after manual search of articles
published in 2022 but not yet indexed in ICL from the following journals: Annals of Vertebral Subluxation
Research, Journal of Pediatric, Maternal, & Family Health, and Journal of Upper Cervical Chiropractic Research . A
total of 142 reports were accessed and critically assessed in detail for inclusion/exclusion criteria per content
by two investigators (A. Haas and J. Chung). Disagreements on inclusion were settled by mutual investigator
agreement, and nine additional reports were excluded at this step from the dataset as not fully meeting
inclusion/exclusion criteria, leaving 133 reports in the final dataset. Table 3 below contains this
compendium of research articles organized by keyword category, inclusive of both chiropractic and spinal
manipulation. In sum, the search and refinement process yielded 133 unique reports [46-178] either
containing or reviewing quantitative data that demonstrate the impact of the chiropractic adjustment/spinal
manipulation on various NEI markers and processes and are therefore represented multiple times within
Table 3.
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 5 of 39
Search keyword Total unique articles that meet criteria REFS**
Autoimmune 0 n/a
Blood Pressure 30 [46-75]
Cortisol 11 [76-86]
Cytokine 12 [84,85,87-96]
Heart Rate Variability/HRV 29 [63,64,70,73,97-121]
Immune/Immunity 27 [85,93,96,122-145]
Interferon 2 [87,95]
Interleukin 10 [84-87,90-92,95,137,138]
Sleep 29 [146-174]
Substance P 4 [86,175-177]
Tumor Necrosis Factor/TNF 6 [88,89,92,95,96,178]
Transforming Growth Factor/TGF 0 n/a
TABLE 3: Final dataset of references, 2000-2022, demonstrating quantitative evidence of the
impact of chiropractic care on neuroimmune-endocrine modulators or outcomes, per keyword.
Review of included references from the literature search
The present integrative literature review was undertaken to explore an integrative physiology perspective on
how and why spinal adjustments elicit a neuroimmune-endocrine response within the human body, with the
potential for broad-reaching clinical effects and outcomes. As such, this review was not designed to provide
a comprehensive meta-analysis or systematic review of isolated areas within the chiropractic field, but
rather to consider the interconnected nature of the findings within this body of literature. Each of the 133
references identified via the literature search offers observational and/or clinical data demonstrating that
spinal adjustments affect the NEI supersystem, its component subsystems, or biomarkers/effectors common
to these subsystems in measurable ways. Considered together, this body of literature provides supportive
evidence that spinal adjustments modulate NEI supersystem-mediated clinical outcomes.
For the present literature search, the category terms employed were “spinal manipulation” and “chiropractic
adjustment,” with the rationale that chiropractic care (which may be labeled in research reports “spinal
manipulation,” “SMT,” “chiropractic adjustment,” “spinal adjustment,” or “chiropractic manipulation”) is a
broad category of manual, non-surgical, spinal intervention, all of which may have effects on aspects of the
NEI supersystem. The present work focuses on the exploration of the biological plausibility of how neural
input resulting from chiropractic intervention to the spine affects the NEI supersystem. However,
considering chiropractic care as a broad genre also created the opportunity to explore characteristics that
create distinctions between each of these subtypes of chiropractic care as delineated above. Philosophically,
“spinal manipulation” and “chiropractic adjustment” within this broad category of chiropractic care bear a
critical methodological distinction that will be highlighted in the following sections, as it portends
important implications for the design and interpretation of research trials. Spinal manipulation methods,
employed by numerous professions including physiotherapists, osteopaths, and some chiropractors, are
often targeted at arbitrary regions of the spine (“manipulable lesions”), and are intended to reduce pain and
improve general spinal or regional mobility. In contrast, the specific chiropractic adjustment, employed by a
different subset of the chiropractic profession, is a targeted intervention directed at a discrete spinal
segment (or segments) that exhibits characteristics of VS. VS is a specific clinical spinal abnormality that
perturbs the normal intervertebral relationships of one or more articulations of the spinal column or the
immediate weight-bearing components of the axial skeleton, is accompanied by a change in the morphology
of the tissue occupying the neural canal and/or intervertebral foramina, and alters neural function
sufficiently to interfere with the transmission of organizing information [179,180]. The neurological
derangements characteristic of VS may include dysafferentation, dysponesis, dysautonomia, changes to
neuroplasticity, and changes to ephaptic transmission [181]. VS can be reproducibly and reliably measured
by observation and quantification of abnormal spinal position and biomechanics in conjunction with
observation of abnormal local or global structural, adaptive, and/or tonal (both muscle and autonomic) tests,
the latter of which reflects abnormality within the complex interaction between local/peripheral state and
central command control [181-183]. Location, analysis, and correction of VS via the specific chiropractic
adjustment (a mode of care termed “LACVS”) are intended to restore structural, biomechanical, and neural
integrity to the spine, with an overriding intention of facilitating neurally modulated adaptive function in
the body. Underscoring the distinctions between these modes of care, recent research indicates that an
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 6 of 39
adjustive thrust targeted at an upper cervical vertebral segment bearing markers of VS elicits a distinct
change in neural/sensorimotor parameters, via N30 complex amplitude, while an adjustive thrust delivered
to a “random” vertebral level with no evidence of vertebral dysfunction (a “manipulable lesion”) fails to
elicit a neurophysiological change [184].
These methodological and outcomes distinctions between these two modes of chiropractic care, spinal
manipulation for treatment of pain and improvement of mobility as compared to LACVS for restoration of
normal neurally mediated adaptive function, become an important consideration for planning and
executing studies that explore potential multiple outcomes of chiropractic care. The practical choice of
whether to assess study subjects for VS per level comprises an additional, paramount distinction between
these two modes of chiropractic intervention, and it exposes a possible methodological flaw in studies that
fail to categorize subjects according to VS status. Specifically, by its nature, any study designed to assess the
potential impact of spinal adjustive intervention on NEI modulators or outcomes presupposes the
possibility of a spinal clinical abnormality (such as VS) that could impact global neurally mediated NEI
adaptive functions and outcomes. The reproducible observations and reports within our compiled database
of NEI responses via correction or reduction of VS, as compared to general spinal manipulation, support this
hypothesis. To clearly distinguish spinal manipulation (for manipulable lesions) from specific chiropractic
adjustment (for VS), a secondary, operational definition of VS can be helpful in that it converts the primary
conceptual definition of this entity into a practical method of ascertaining its presence and assessing
changes in its severity, in temporal relationship to the adjustment [181,185,186]. If a given observed
maladaptive syndrome is a collection of signs and symptoms caused by VS, then ultimately, supportive
evidence for the involvement of the clinical entity of VS is provided by the successful application of its
correlate solution, the chiropractic adjustment, with temporally correlated resolution or reduction of the
manifesting maladaptive signs and/or symptoms. The presence of VS could therefore be understood by the
reliable, predictable, temporally correlated reduction or resolution of its quantifiable manifesting structural
and functional maladaptations after delivery of the chiropractic adjustment, as compared to placebo control,
as follows. Biomechanical and structural maladaptive manifestations of VS are quantifiable by multiple
means [187], including weight-bearing radiography [188], posture and gait analysis [189,190], balance
testing and joint repositioning [191-193], and range of motion or static/motion palpation [187,194].
Neural/neurophysiological maladaptive manifestations of VS can be observed by paraspinal thermography
and sEMG [195], HRV [196], blood pressure assessment [46], tonal/tissue changes, and functional leg length
analysis [197-199]. In everyday clinical practice, whether using a postural, segmental, or tonal approach, the
presence and subsequent correction of VS can be reliably assessed via a multidimensional, combinatorial
battery of such tests as listed above [182]; selection of outcomes assessments is dependent on the nature of
the model of practice employed by the practitioner, with correction/reduction of VS as a common
denominator. By comparison, the criteria for spinal manipulation therapy include pain/tenderness upon
palpation, reduced range of motion, or spinal stiffness [200], therefore using an operational definition
focused on pain and/or range of motion. Considering the criteria described above, it becomes clear that the
clinical targets of spinal manipulation therapy and the outcomes it elicits are easily distinguishable from the
clinical intentions and outcomes of location, analysis, and correction of VS via the specific chiropractic
adjustment.
From a research methods standpoint, then, if VS is a causative agent of NEI dysfunction (a compendium of
maladaptative syndromes), it becomes necessary to categorize study subjects for NEI outcomes studies
(including symptomatic, or “healthy” asymptomatic subjects) according to presence or absence of
identifiable VS, per level, in order to establish appropriate experimental and sham/control arms. If VS is a
causative agent for NEI dysfunction/maladaptation, then studying spinal interventions that are performed
on patients lacking this putative causative agent (no VS present) would likely lead to null/negative
outcomes, and therefore to inappropriate confirmation of the null hypothesis, a classic methodological flaw.
Conversely, perhaps NEI or other salutogenic changes observed after spinal manipulation may in fact be
bona fide, particularly if (uncharacterized) VS was unknowingly present at the level(s) manipulated, much
like one can hit a target on a bullseye if using birdshot.
While a chiropractic adjustment-centered approach acknowledges VS as a variable important to trial design
and outcomes, spinal manipulation by its nature does not assess for VS. This discrepancy raises concerns
regarding the interpretation of control and experimental outcomes of trials utilizing general spinal
manipulation as an interventional approach, particularly those reporting negative results: even if both
modes of chiropractic care may address the same spinal segment, perhaps it is the functional condition of
the segment and its correction, rather than the segment per se, that dictates outcomes. The next horizon will
be to distinguish in more detail the effects of general mobilization or spinal manipulation versus the specific
chiropractic adjustment, per level; for example, comparing interventions to a spinal segment that does
versus does not bear VS as measured by validated tests [182].
Bearing this distinction in mind, in the following summary sections the general term “chiropractic care” is
intended to encompass the more general model of care inclusive of both spinal manipulation and traditional
chiropractic care, but if the specific designation “chiropractic adjustment” is used, specific assessment for
and correction of VS as a clinical variable was deployed, and results will be discussed accordingly.
Importantly, given the clarifications described above, in future published chiropractic studies selection and
application of the terms “chiropractic adjustment” or “spinal manipulation” should follow the criteria set
forth above, to accurately delineate the functional difference between these two modes of spinal care for
research purposes. Deploying the two terms accurately will allow this field to correct the past inappropriate
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 7 of 39
conflation of these non-interchangeable terms [186], leading to a more discrete understanding of the
contribution of the functional status of the vertebral level to outcomes of chiropractic care.
The following 10 sections explore the references identified that met our inclusion criteria per keyword, with
a consideration of strengths, limitations, biological plausibility, and future directions for each area of study.
The inclusion criteria for this integrative review were purposefully chosen to create a bias toward research
documenting quantitative results and should be interpreted as such. Reports describing negative results will,
however, be discussed within each results section, to add context. While the theoretical and practical
neurophysiological mechanisms by which spinal manipulation [117,201,202] or chiropractic adjustment
delivered for VS [181,203,204] exert local and global effects on the nervous system have been reviewed,
biologically plausible mechanisms by which chiropractic care may exert effects on the integrated NEI system
and its components specifically will be discussed per keyword. Two keyword searches (“Autoimmune” and
“Transforming Growth Factor/TGF”) did not yield articles published as of 2022 that met our inclusion
criteria, and therefore these topics will not be addressed here.
Blood Pressure
Blood pressure is an integrative adaptive response that weighs inputs from each of the NEI supersystems
[205-207]. Restoration of normal blood pressure can be considered not simply as a neural or endocrine
change, but rather as a coordinated action, since both short-term and long-term blood pressure regulation
requires the integrated actions of multiple cardiovascular, renal, neural, endocrine, immune, and local tissue
control systems [208,209]. High blood pressure is connected to multiple worsened patient outcomes; every
10mm mercury reduction of hypertension significantly reduces the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and
heart failure, and leads to a significant reduction in all-cause mortality [210]. Restoration of a normotensive
state from a maladaptive state of either hypertension or hypotension can be considered a salutogenic
change, since this would represent a positive change on the health ease/disease continuum [28,29]. Available
research literature describing the effect of chiropractic care on blood pressure contains conflicting reports,
likely due to methodological differences, and in sum these data support a role for restoration of normal
blood pressure with chiropractic care, particularly with correction or reduction of VS in the upper cervical
spinal region.
The collection of 30 references identified in this search [46-75] contains 10 qualitative case studies with
quantitative assessment of changes in blood pressure, 14 trials (observational, cohort, RCT), and six reviews
demonstrating the impact of chiropractic care on blood pressure. Of the identified reviews, four report
“mixed results” yet conclude that chiropractic care yields promising positive change in individuals with
hypertension [50,51,55,64] while one review notes changes in systolic blood pressure but expresses concern
regarding potential sources of bias in trial design [58], a conclusion since challenged via a more recent
analysis [50]. Interestingly, of the 14 identified trials reporting positive change in blood pressure, eight
utilized assessment and adjusting techniques for the location and correction of VS [46,53,56,59,60,65,66,70],
and eight employed one-variable, upper cervical trial designs [46,53,56,60,65,66,69,74], suggesting that
upper cervical VS may be important for chiropractic care-mediated modulation of blood pressure. Consistent
with these data, nine case studies identified in the search show a similar trend: each of these references
employed techniques to assess for and correct VS [48,52,54,61,62,67,68,71,72,75], and six of these utilized
specific upper cervical approaches [48,52,54,62,71,72], though interpretation of case studies as a group must
be approached with caution due to risk of bias intrinsic to case studies. It is essential to note that the
demographic characteristics of study groups are not consistent between many of these studies, complicating
their consideration as a group: for instance, while several studies include only unmedicated participants
with stage I hypertension [46,47,49,69], other studies include normotensive individuals and/or do not offer
details regarding medication use [53,56,59,63,65,66,70,73,74]. Importantly, seven negative/null studies not
meeting our inclusion criteria were also identified in the process of our literature search, each with
methodological flaws that may complicate the interpretation of their results and may have resulted in false
confirmation of the null hypothesis. Three of seven negative studies utilized methods that may have been
insufficient to test the hypothesis, via the use of normotensive rather than hypertensive study participants
[118,211,212]. Six of seven negative studies employed a full-spine intervention approach or were unclear
regarding which specific vertebral levels were addressed, and therefore these approaches may not have
impacted segment(s) that may impact blood pressure, particularly if functional perturbation (VS) at any
specific level is indeed implicated [118,211-215]. Five of seven did not assess manipulated spinal segments
for VS as a clinical variable that may impact blood pressure [118,211-213,215], a choice that may have
complicated their trial design and outcomes. The remaining study of the seven identified that reported no
change in blood pressure with the chiropractic adjustment successfully utilized a specific upper cervical
analysis and adjusting approach for VS at a single vertebral segment (C1) [216], yet its conclusions and
comparability to other studies of unmedicated subjects that yielded a quantitative change in blood pressure
may be complicated by the investigators' choice to study participants continuing to take medication to
modulate blood pressure. This methodological flaw may have led to incorrect confirmation of the null
hypothesis, since potential blood pressure responses may be affected, blunted, or negated by medications
designed to modulate hypertension [216]. The possibility that publication bias may have prevented
dissemination of well-designed studies that do confirm the null hypothesis must also be considered;
however, in sum, an in-depth examination of available research that includes consideration of VS does
support a theory that upper-cervical-specific approaches to analysis and adjustment may correct or reduce
VS and thereby impact blood pressure, whereas an approach of full-spine manipulation without assessment
for VS may yield the “mixed results” reported in reviews and discussed herein, depending on whether a
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 8 of 39
vertebral segment (upper cervical or otherwise) affected by subluxation was present, addressed, and was
affecting blood pressure. It is also important to consider that within this theory, VS at one segment or area
may be most commonly associated with this abnormal physiology and yet maladaptive blood pressure or any
other abnormal physiology that could either directly or indirectly impact blood pressure could also be
evoked by VS at different segments. Considering all of the above factors together may therefore explain why
currently available meta-analyses conclude the evidence is “mixed, but promising.”
Of the papers identified, Bakris et al. [46] is a particularly striking study due to its trial design (double-
blinded, placebo-controlled), its clinical specificity (chiropractic adjustment was constrained to a single
subluxated vertebral segment); both experimental and sham groups were confirmed to have VS at the same
spinal level, C1, per National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association (NUCCA) protocol [217]; both pre-
adjustment and post-adjustment assessments for VS were employed, including radiography and tonal
leg/postural assessments), and, importantly, the sham control was designed to be indistinguishable to the
patient from an authentic alignment, thereby reducing the potential for placebo effect. In this study, both
hypertension and rotational/lateral atlas displacement improved in adjusted patients but not sham-treated
individuals, both immediately following adjustment and in a sustained manner over a course of eight weeks,
strongly supporting a connection between correction of C1 VS and improvement or resolution of
hypertension. These results were both statistically and clinically significant, thereby rejecting the null
hypothesis. It is of interest to compare and contrast this study with the aforementioned 2016 Goertz study
[216], which was ostensibly designed to confirm or refute Bakris’ findings. This study, while it used a similar
adjustment approach (upper cervical, assessing and adjusting C1 for VS), can be distinguished from the
Bakris study by an important difference in the respective study populations: while participants in the 2007
Bakris study were “washed out” of medications, participants in the 2016 Goertz study remained on
hypertensive medications. Echoing concerns highlighted in the previous paragraph, this choice comprises an
important methodological distinction between these two studies that renders them non-comparable. The
conclusions of the Goertz study, no change in hypertension observed after adjustment, will naturally only
apply to individuals taking medication, whereas the conclusions of the Bakris study, normalization of blood
pressure after a chiropractic adjustment, suggest that the hemodynamic homeostasis of stage I hypertensive
individuals not taking medication for their condition may benefit from chiropractic care.
Given that several reviews have described “conflicting evidence” regarding whether chiropractic care
modulates hypertension, one must consider these mixed data bearing in mind distinctions in the research
methods of the individual reports assessed in these reviews, including (1) studies that test one variable
(adjustment of one vertebral level) cannot be directly compared to studies that contain multiple variables
(adjustment of multiple vertebral levels, left to the “discretion of the practitioner”); (2) assessment of
intervention-related blood pressure changes in normotensive individuals cannot be compared to assessment
of subjects with abnormal blood pressure; (3) the use of a different patient population (medicated, as
compared to not medicated) renders studies non-comparable; and (4) studies that do and do not test for
VS also cannot be considered together, as VS itself may present a physiological variable requiring
accommodation in research methods design. A more in-depth appraisal of all available studies is beyond the
scope of the present paper, however, we highlight here the presence of research methods concerns that may
have impacted previous analyses and subsequent systematic and meta-analyses. We therefore advocate for
an updated and rigorous meta-analysis of available data with critical appraisal of all relevant studies,
including a delineation of whether VS was assessed, and that controls for confounding factors such as
medication use and lifestyle factors that can influence the outcomes of such studies. Future research on this
subject should include a variety of study designs that clearly delineate the demographic characteristics of
study participants (specifically, whether the study subjects are normotensive, hypo- or hypertensive, and
whether included participants are taking medication that may affect blood pressure) and should address the
multifaceted nature of blood pressure regulation.
Multiple overlapping pathways by which VS, particularly at the upper cervical spine, may exert blood
pressure effects have been suggested and explored. Both somatic and autonomic influences have been
suggested [55,218], and these possibilities are not mutually exclusive. For example, extrapolating data from
laboratory studies [219,220], Torns [65,66] elegantly suggests a pathway that may mediate reflex changes in
autonomic variables after neck muscle spindle afferent activation: the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS, a site
of cardiorespiratory regulation that receives not only visceral, but also somatic, afferents [221]) and
intermedius nucleus of the medulla (InM) receive information from upper cervical proprioceptive afferents
via the recurrent meningeal nerve and dorsal root ganglion, and/or the nodose and jugular ganglion. In
Torns’ model, mechanical pressure from atlas displacement may alter proprioceptive neural input from
upper cervical somatic afferents to the NTS, which may, in turn, inform and influence integrative adaptive
control of blood pressure via the cardiac autonomic network (CAN) and its efferent [222]. Interestingly, such
upper cervical proprioceptive afferent input to NTS may modulate either hypo- or hypertension, as these
individual circuits in NTS can be selectively activated [223], consistent with Torns’ observation of
normalization of hypo as well as hypertension after upper cervical adjustment [66]. Alternatively, VS at other
spinal levels (or multiple spinal levels, in a summation model) may elicit adaptive change in blood pressure
as a clinical outcome via direct mechanisms other than upper cervical, including modulation of the pressor
reflex, muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) as mediated by somatosensory afferents, effects on
baroreceptor compliance, or modulation of cervicosympathetic reflex or other neural networks [56,64], or via
coordinated systemic effects resulting from flux within the NEI supersystem, as mediated by changes in
cortisol [224] or inflammation [209]. It is interesting to consider, as well, the effects that medication(s) may
have on any of these putative pathways, as each category of blood pressure medication would be expected to
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 9 of 39
have impacts on cardiovascular hemodynamics [225], underscoring the importance of a trial design that
excludes participant medication use. Further, in-depth exploration will be necessary to fully study a
potential upper cervical etiology of hypertension, and to elucidate other multiple, overlapping, or layered
biological mechanisms by which VS and the specific chiropractic adjustment can alter the dynamic
equilibrium of blood pressure.
Cortisol
The small molecule cortisol, a glucocorticoid steroid hormone and classical neuroendocrine modulator, is
often referred to as a “stress biomarker.” Cortisol’s diverse actions include mediation of the stress response,
regulation of metabolism, and modulation of the inflammatory response and the immune response [226].
Pathological dysregulation of cortisol levels may result in outright diseases such as Addison’s disease or
Cushing’s syndrome; however, sub-pathologic dysregulation can also result in numerous health
presentations including but not limited to cardiovascular disease, autonomic dysfunction, metabolic
syndrome/insulin resistance, cognitive decline, fatigue/depression, and dysregulated
inflammation/autoimmunity [227]. The flux of cortisol within a normal range (either increase or decrease)
reflects both the body’s normal dynamic equilibrium and its adaptive capacity [226]; any intervention that
impacts cortisol flux may therefore impact adaptive responses as executed by the neuroendocrine
supersystem. Improvement of cortisol regulation within the body would represent a salutogenic change
[28,29], via enhancing or restoring the body's intrinsic ability to shift metabolism, inflammation, and
autonomic state in response to stress.
The present literature search yielded 11 references reporting alteration of cortisol levels after chiropractic
intervention [76-86]: three case studies demonstrating a quantitative change in salivary cortisol [76-78], and
eight-level V or higher [38] references including five clinical trials [79-83], and three reviews [84-86]
quantifying change in cortisol with chiropractic care. The latter category includes two systematic
reviews/meta-analyses, one finding moderate quality evidence that spinal manipulation may influence
cortisol levels post-intervention [86], and a more recent work finding “mixed effects” of chiropractic care on
salivary/serum cortisol levels in people with spinal pain, a discrepancy the authors suggest may be due to
differences in study populations [84]. This finding of “mixed results” brings forth an important point: as
cortisol normally crests and falls with circadian rhythm, perhaps absolute change as compared to baseline
rather than the specific direction of change should be considered, or alternatively, results may be subdivided
into “increase” and “decrease” categories for the purpose of meta-analyses. Accordingly, the identified level
V or greater reports include a controlled, repeated-measures, single-blind randomized study showing
statistically significant changes in serum cortisol in adjusted patients as compared to sham [81], a controlled
laboratory study finding that thoracic spinal adjustment resulted in an immediate decrease in salivary
cortisol concentration and reduced testosterone: cortisol ratio six hours after intervention [82], as well as an
RCT of 83 chronic mechanical neck pain patients in which an increase in salivary cortisol concentration was
identified immediately following chiropractic care as compared to control [83]. Of note, one null study not
meeting our inclusion criteria for the final database was restricted to asymptomatic subjects and did not
show change in salivary cortisol in spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) as compared to sham [228]
underscoring the possibility that an effect on cortisol by spinal adjustment may not be universal, but rather
context-specific (e.g., significant induction of change in cortisol levels may not be readily observed in
normal patients, but may be more salient in patients with abnormal cortisol flux, response, or levels, such as
may be caused by segment-specific VS that may cause varying degrees of dysafferentation or dysautonomia
[181]), necessitating further exploration. Taken together, the above data provide foundational preliminary
evidence that cortisol levels can be impacted by chiropractic care and therefore could impact NEI outcomes
such as blood pressure regulation [224] and hormonal, cognitive, metabolic, and immune function [229],
including modulation of inflammation [230,231].
These early data support a model in which chiropractic care may affect the flux of cortisol within the body’s
homeodynamic system, potentially in a context-specific and/or bidirectional manner. A clear biological
pathway by which VS and chiropractic adjustment may affect cortisol flux has not yet been elucidated,
though both autonomic effects and HPA-axis effects present possible etiologies. In a recent review,
chiropractic care was proposed to modulate the autonomic nervous system (ANS) through activation of the
parasympathetic nervous system, reduction of sympathetic nervous system activity, and synthesis of
neuroendocrine factors, impacting major depressive disorder [232]; modulation of the ANS could also exert
effects on cortisol levels and flux, via actions on the adrenal gland [233]. Alternatively, recent data suggest
that the HPA axis regulation system interacts with the somatosensory system [234], bringing forth the
possibility that altered somatosensory input via VS may impact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis flux
and release of CRF, corticotropin-releasing factor, impacting cortisol levels and flux [222,235]. Consistent
with this possibility, pain/nociception has been shown to modulate both HPA axis sensitivity and cortisol
release [236]. An important limitation of this collection of articles is that these data have not yet directly
addressed whether these observed changes in cortisol result in clinically significant patient outcomes. As
such, future studies (including longitudinal) of changes in cortisol after chiropractic adjustment as have
been proposed [237] should be directed towards exploring changes in cortisol in various patient populations
after specific adjustments per level(s) bearing indicators of VS, and incorporating clinical endpoints that
reflect cortisol-related pathologies as listed above, as well as research directed towards elucidating precise
neurobiological pathways by which spinal adjustment can affect cortisol levels.
Cytokine
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 10 of 39
The term “cytokine” encompasses a broad family of extracellular proteinaceous small-molecule NEI
regulators that have diverse and complex effects on inflammation/immunity [238], neuromodulatory effects
[239], and regulatory effects on endocrine function [240]. Cytokines influence cell, tissue, and system
homeodynamics through both transient and longer-lasting alterations [241] and therefore the term
“cytokine” was selected as a candidate indicator for global homeodynamic functional alterations that may
result from spinal adjustment. One clear biological pathway by which chiropractic care may elicit alterations
of cytokines (or any small molecule messenger, including interferons (IFNs), interleukins, TNFa, and
substance P) is mechanical deformation, which can instigate the release of small molecule messengers from
either affected cells or nearby extracellular matrix and fascia [242-244]. Twelve references discussing the
impact of chiropractic intervention on cytokines were identified in our search [84,85,87-96]. As “cytokine” is
an umbrella term that covers several other keywords used in this search, these identified references will be
considered in general in this paragraph and in more detail in their respective sections below, to emphasize
their respective unique functional characteristics and/or distribution and/or compartmentalization within
the NEI supersystem. This collection of articles can be divided into three reviews [84,85,96] and eight trials,
including a collection of RCTs exploring short-term in vitro cytokine biomarker responses in cells from
individuals undergoing SMT [91-95] and several RCTs detailing changes in cytokines in individuals
undergoing SMT, as measured by direct lab testing [87,88,90]. The subject of assessment of changes in
cytokines with spinal adjustment has garnered much interest in the past two decades, and the early evidence
described herein supports the possibility of local or global change of cytokine biomarkers as a result of SMT
or chiropractic adjustment. However, it is important to consider that this field of study is in its relative
infancy, since such RCTs are challenging to plan, fund, and execute. One noted limitation intrinsic to the
youth of this field of study is a lack of demonstrated, direct clinical correlation between changes in cytokine
biomarker levels and impact on patient outcomes, resulting in as-yet unclarified clinical significance [127].
Future directions correlating changes in cytokine flux with clinical outcomes of spinal adjustment will likely
be the next step as this field of study matures, and may include studies that would allow for stronger
conclusions regarding the connection between spinal adjustment and cytokine-mediated physiological
changes. Ongoing studies exploring relationships between chiropractic care and serum cytokines may also
benefit from updated technology such as multiplex testing, through which coordinated changes in multiple
small molecule messengers such as interleukins, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), and IFNs can be assessed over
time. Design of studies that compare serum samples from each subject to their own baseline, individually
rather than as a cohort for trials, may be helpful since levels of cytokines may differ among individuals [245].
Heart Rate Variability (HRV)
In order to efficiently adapt to its internal and external environment, the body must be capable of quickly
modulating any of its activities. The capacity to rapidly change parameters within a normal physiological
range in response to any perturbation is a foundational and essential element for the body’s entire range of
processes, from systemic/whole-body to cellular adaptability. Any deficit or obstruction to the ability to
adapt would be expected to detract from the body’s self-regulatory capacity, resilience, and ultimate survival
[1]. HRV has long been considered one of the most promising biomarkers of autonomic activity [246], though
controversy exists as to whether it comprises a stand-alone biomarker with specific diagnostic or predictive
power, given its complex nature as reflecting the summary of multiple physical and psychological stressors
and affected by medication use, age, physical fitness, cardiac pathology, and other factors [247]. It is
considered by some a surrogate parameter of the complex interaction between the brain and cardiovascular
system that reflects both adaptability and robustness within the cardioautonomic system [248] and to be a
proxy indicator of neurovisceral integration (NVI) and NEI adaptability [249]. HRV consists of changes in the
time intervals between consecutive heartbeats called interbeat intervals (IBIs). Rather than having a
metronomic rhythm, the beating of the heart exhibits micro-variations in IBIs, a variability that is quantified
via metrics such as “time domain,” “frequency domain,” “non-linear” metrics, and “coherence" [250-252].
Abnormally low HRV is a strong, independent predictor of future health problems including worsened
cardiovascular disease outcomes [253], inflammatory and immune [254,255] outcomes, and is associated
with all-cause mortality [253]. Reduced HRV is also observed in patients with autonomic dysfunction,
including anxiety, depression, asthma, and sudden infant death [252]. Conversely, higher HRV is used to
predict fatigue, recovery, and performance in athletes [256] and is a salutogenic marker predictive of
enhanced stress resilience and cognitive performance [257], healthy longevity [258], and cancer survival
[259]. HRV may therefore be viewed as an integrative measure of systems biology [248,249,252], that both
considers input from and influences immune, metabolic, endocrine, and respiratory processes.
Enhancements in cardio-autonomic resilience and adaptability as reflected by HRV would represent positive
change on the health ease/disease continuum [28,29], comprising an observable manifestation of
salutogenesis.
Twenty-nine references were identified in our search that assess the relationship between chiropractic care
and HRV [63,64,70,73,97-121]. The available literature can be grouped into 12 case studies or case series
reports [100,102-105,107-110,113,120,121], 12 cohort, RCT or other level V studies
[63,70,73,98,99,101,111,112,115,116,118,119], and five reviews [64,97,106,114,117]. This collection of
research papers is heterogeneous by nature, given the permutations of HRV metrics, differences in
measurement conditions (including sampling duration, patient position, and breathing instructions), and
data management, particularly when considered in the context of the many diverse approaches to
chiropractic care. The five identified reviews generally agree that chiropractic care exerts an influence on the
ANS as measured by both time and frequency domain metrics of HRV. Of note, the HRV field has some
disagreement as to whether frequency domain metrics (low frequency (LF) and high frequency (HF)) are
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 11 of 39
universally accepted as generalizable to specific aspects of autonomic function, such as sympathetic or
parasympathetic activity, and whether frequency domain metrics can be easily and reproducibly measured
pre- versus post-adjustment [250,260,261]. As such, conclusions of studies describing changes in frequency
domain parameters should be considered with caution. Therefore, we have chosen to narrow our focus for
the purposes of the current literature review to reports that utilize time domain metrics (rMSSD (root mean
square of successive differences), SDNN (standard deviation of NN intervals), and LnRMSSD (natural
logarithm of rMSSD)), which are mathematically simpler and less affected by measurement conditions or
data management strategies [63,73,104,105,116,118,119]. Of these works, Zhang et al. [119] are notable in
that both immediate and sustained improvements in SDNN were observed in the 539 patient cohort after
chiropractic adjustment delivered to correct VS, as compared to baseline HRV. While this study lacked a
cohort unadjusted control, the observation of an increase of time domain metrics with chiropractic care has
since been repeated by several studies including three controlled RCTs [63,73,104,105,116,118], supporting
Zhang’s contention that chiropractic care enhances HRV. Considered together, this limited but promising
collection of studies suggests a salutogenic role for chiropractic adjustment of VS, via enhancement of
adaptability and resilience as reflected by HRV.
Our literature search also identified two studies not meeting inclusion criteria that reported no change in
time domain metrics with chiropractic care [212,262], discussed here for comparison and context. Two
important differences can be noted between these negative studies and the seven studies that report the
change in time-domain HRV with chiropractic care: while the seven studies described above reporting
quantitative change in HRV included symptomatic patients with presumably abnormal HRV values pre-
intervention, the two null studies assessed the effect of spinal manipulation only on asymptomatic subjects
whose HRV values would be expected to flux within normal parameters. It is also possible that HRV would
only be affected within a certain patient cohort, with as yet undefined specific characteristics. Further, these
studies addressed different spinal regions (cervical/lumbar versus thoracic, respectively) raising the
possibility that no effect was observed in the null studies due to incorrect selection of vertebral level
intervention and/or inadequate characterization of subjects’ VS functional status. Additionally, echoing the
previous discussion of the methodological concerns within the research literature on blood pressure and
chiropractic care, repeated observation of change of HRV with spinal adjustment supports the likelihood of a
spinal abnormality (e.g., VS) that affects HRV. This possibility underscores the necessity of reconsidering the
use of “asymptomatic patients” and/or adjusting per level without assessing for VS: if VS were causative of
HRV functional abnormality, then its presence would be expected to be requisite to yield HRV outcomes with
spinal adjustment, and no changes in HRV would be expected with adjustment in the absence of VS at that
same vertebral level. We hypothesize that the selection of the appropriate vertebral level for a chiropractic
adjustment is important for observing changes in cardioautonomic function as measured by HRV and that
failure to select the appropriate vertebral level would constitute a confounding error in research methods
that would dictate observed outcomes. Future research on HRV should include trials that randomize patients
to receive adjustments for VS vs. random selection of vertebral level.
The available evidence suggests the utility of chiropractic care for the improvement or restoration of normal
HRV as measured by time domain metrics. Future HRV research in the chiropractic field should bear in mind
the many technical challenges with quantifying HRV that need to be appreciated and addressed [263].
Ongoing research should be planned with consideration of standardization of approaches to promote
comparability of results such as utilizing research-validated data collection and management approaches
[264] including a collection of HRV data via ECG rather than plethysmograph; "cleaning" of data with
software that detects and removes artifacts such as ectopic beats or missed data; employing a standardized
five minute sampling time at a defined time of day, with patients positioned seated and breathing normally
at between 11 and 20 respirations per minute; including the metrics SDNN and rMSSD such that data may be
compared to known normative standards; and publishing tables of all HRV data obtained in studies [250].
Researchers should pay particular attention to HRV terminology and discrete limitations therein since each
individual HRV metric represents one unique facet of HRV and these are specific, not interchangeable, and
not generalizable. For instance, the time-domain metrics SDNN and rMSSD are distinct: while both SNS and
PNS activity contribute to SDNN, making this a good overall descriptor of autonomic activity, rMSSD is the
primary time-domain measure used to estimate the vagally mediated changes reflected in HRV [250]. Each of
these metrics is also limited: SDNN conveys no information regarding autonomic balance (SNS/PNS) per se,
and is important to discern that rMSSD is not a direct measurement of vagal tone as a generality, but rather
a reflection of vagal modulation of heart rhythm. These metrics and their definitions should be employed
precisely within ongoing HRV research within the chiropractic field, to best interface it with HRV research in
other fields.
The observed change in HRV with chiropractic care indicates modulation of autonomic activity, which unto
itself comprises an effector arm of the NEI supersystem [10,265]. The precise neuroanatomical means by
which chiropractic care, and VS, may exert neuromodulatory effects on HRV have yet to be elucidated and
may include indirect effects via modulation of sympatho-excitatory response [55] or alteration of
somatosensory input to the CNS from the upper cervical spine [220], or perhaps via modulation of vagal
(SNS/PNS) input within the hierarchy of Thayer’s NVI model [249]. Interestingly, “innocuous stimulation” to
the upper cervical spine evokes HRV changes [98], and osteopathic suboccipital decompression enhances
HRV indices in healthy subjects [266,267] supporting the hypothesis that somatosensory efferent input from
the upper cervical spine, or dysfunction thereof via VS, may influence HRV. The emerging field of research
exploring the impact of chiropractic care on HRV contains both clues and opportunities for the broader-
reaching effects of chiropractic care to be discovered and understood.
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 12 of 39
Immunity/Immune System
The general term immunity, inclusive of innate immunity, adaptive immunity, and passive immunity,
encompasses an expansive swath of biological function. In an integrative systems view of neuroendocrine
immunology, immune function represents one leg of a three-legged stool: any impact on the nervous or
endocrine system would be expected to affect the immune system, and vice versa, with a continuum from
subtle to profound potential impacts on physiological and clinical outcomes [20,265]. The means by which
immune functions may be modulated by the nervous and/or endocrine system are multiple and overlapping.
These include direct innervation of immune organs, sharing of messenger molecules and receptors, sites of
physical overlap such as found within the glymphatic and CNS lymphatic systems, and both direct and
indirect reciprocal communication between the endocrine axis, the ANS, and the immune system.
Furthermore, NEI cross-modulation is likely to be influenced by, and influence the microbiome via the
microbiota-gut-brain (MGB) axis [268]. The complex interactions of the nervous, endocrine, and immune
systems orchestrate the symphony that is an adaptive allostatic response, affecting not only immune
function but also multiple physiological processes including stress responses, growth and development,
reproduction, metabolism, and circadian rhythms. “Immunity,” per se, can therefore be viewed as a central
cog in the greater machine of integrated physiology. While diminishment of immune function renders the
body susceptible to disease and dysfunction, enhancement or restoration of any aspect of function of the
immune system would be considered salutogenic by definition [28,29] as such improvement would be
expected to create a positive change in the health ease/disease continuum.
The broad question of whether chiropractic care impacts immunity is challenging to consider simply, and as
such the aim of this “immune/immunity” keyword search summary is to describe existing evidence that
chiropractic care impacts immune function as an entity on multiple levels, from basic science exploratory
studies to clinically-relevant outcomes. As with the keyword search term “cytokine” above, other unique
keyword searches that directly relate to “immunity” such as interleukin and interferon are considered
separately in more individual detail in the following sections. Twenty-seven references were identified in
our search describing the relationship between chiropractic care and various aspects of immune function: 12
case studies, five research trials, and 10 reviews [85,93,96,122-145]. Of these original research studies
meeting our inclusion/exclusion criteria, notable findings include one early set of pilot studies that report
trends towards shifts in blood markers/CBCs in adjusted subjects [124,125], and another trial that reports
lymphocytic activation in adjusted subjects as compared to control [132]. Similarly, another trial details an
increase in antibody secretion from cells isolated from subjects undergoing spinal manipulation, as
compared to sham control [93]. The present search also identified a number of case studies with quantitative
evidence of functional improvement of autoimmune and infectious processes, such as the resolution of
chronic and/or treatment-recalcitrant idiopathic arthritis, asthma, otitis media, and myasthenia gravis
following the introduction of chiropractic care [123,128,131,134,136,140,143], and/or report of reduced
frequency of illness or school misses after commencement of chiropractic care [133,142,144,145,152].
Together, these original data are supportive of chiropractic care impacting immune adaptability in an
evident model of practice.
Several reviews identified in our search discuss the available literature (including research published before
2000, excluded from the present search) and explore biologically plausible mechanisms by which
chiropractic care may enhance immune function by triggering activation of the neuroendocrine system.
Three early (pre-2010) narrative literature reviews [126,129,139] discuss a small but growing body of animal
and basic science research exploring the potential impacts of chiropractic care on the immune system, via
neuroimmune cross-communication. One review contends that while these early studies do not directly
examine the effect of chiropractic care on immune functional outcomes, the available basic science studies
do give broad mechanistic support for and are suggestive of overlapping mechanisms by which spinal
influences may mediate a clinically significant impact on immune function, thereby providing justification
for additional studies [126]. Some of these early studies present conflicting data, for which potential
contextual explanations have been outlined including research methods considerations including the timing
of data acquisition [96,130]. Indeed, one critical review that we identified in our search gives consideration
to similar research methods issues, including small sample size, heterogeneity related to methods of
biomarkers collection and sham procedures, and lack of studies on symptomatic subjects. These issues
preclude any understanding of how the elements of innate and adaptive immunity would function after SMT
under pathological circumstances, in a clinically relevant manner [130]. Similar concerns were echoed in a
narrow-scope systematic review of eight studies two years later [127]. Most recently, a broader-scope
narrative review by Haavik et al. [135] offers that 18 of 23 studies considered show a significant effect of
chiropractic care on neuroimmune markers. The authors outline multiple neurologically based, research-
supported mechanisms by which chiropractic care may elicit this response. It is of note that most of these
early exploratory studies that utilize spinal manipulation as an intervention approach fail to assess
VS status, segmental or global, in either sham or experimental arm, thus creating a potential research
methodological error that would further complicate the interpretation of results. Therefore, early research
on the relationship of chiropractic care to immune function offers promising observations that create
opportunities for further investigation using more refined methods, including the use of VS and sham
cohorts, and the inclusion of measurement of clinical endpoint outcomes.
Some controversy regarding the application and utility of chiropractic care for the enhancement or
restoration of immune adaptability has arisen in recent years. The coronavirus pandemic of 2020 brought a
flurry of debate surrounding the relationship of chiropractic adjustment to the function of the immune
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 13 of 39
system. The World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) promoted a self-published, non-peer-reviewed “rapid
review” [269] of the potential effects of spinal adjustment on immune parameters that discussed only six
pre-selected research papers and a “meme” that was circulating on social media, therefore raising questions
regarding bias and flawed research methods. It is interesting that the narrow scope of this ”white paper,” not
inclusive of all available literature by virtue of selective exclusion criteria, is echoed subsequently in a
narrow-scope review [127] whose corresponding author has affiliations with the WFC, including the authors
of the “rapid review,” and who co-authored a “unified statement” signed 140+ chiropractors, calling “on
regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those
claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system" [270]. Of note, with
roughly 100,000 chiropractors worldwide [271], these 140+ signatories comprise 0.14% of chiropractors,
rather than a "unified statement" as claimed. Through these documents, the WFC has promoted conclusions
and short-sighted advice including the contention that chiropractors worldwide should refrain from
statements regarding the utility of chiropractic care for immune health and adaptability. These myopic
claims have since been challenged by more recent and in-depth reviews of research literature on this subject
[85,137]. In addition, a Best Practice/Practice Guidelines overview of 125 research papers related to the
impact of chiropractic care on immunity has been issued. This document, peer-reviewed by 200
chiropractors worldwide, provides an evidence base for field practitioners [138] and clearly maps out the
foundational elements and blueprints for the planning and execution of future research on the impact of
chiropractic care on immune function. To overcome the present controversy, all current evidence and
reviews should be considered, in conjunction with the Foundation’s Best Practices/Practice Guidelines
document and in an EIP context, by any entity advising chiropractic boards and governing agencies that the
chiropractic scope of practice should exclude immune adaptability.
Most recently, Schalow et al. [141] published results from a translational research-centered observational
trial reporting the effect of specific chiropractic adjustment on levels of secretory IgA (SIgA) in chiropractic
patients, a study that begins to bridge the gap between exploratory basic science and clinically relevant
outcomes-based chiropractic research on immunity. The report, “Secretory Immunoglobulin A and Upper
Cervical Chiropractic: A Preliminary Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study,” details observations
gathered from n=41 upper cervical chiropractic patients under the care of five qualified diplomates or fellows
(DCCJP, FCCJP) specializing in UCAT (Upper Cervical Adjusting Techniques), whose analysis and adjusting
approach is specific for location and correction of VS at C1/Atlas. The strength of the research method
employed for this study, choosing to limit their study cohort to VS at one variable (C1), parallels Bakris’ well-
designed clinical trial on the effect of chiropractic adjustment at C1 on hypertension [46]: in both cases,
limiting experimental variables allows for simpler interpretation of data. SIgA, an indicator of systemic
immunity, is an integral part of the body’s “first line of defense” [272]. An accessible biomarker of mucosal
immunity, SIgA provides a useful indicator of several key parameters including individual and community
immune response, disease severity, and clinical risk [273]. Lower levels of SIgA are correlated with infection
risk [274,275] and recent studies have suggested that salivary IgA seems to be an effective outcome for
controlling the risk of developing URTIs in athletes [276]. As such, any intervention that enhances SIgA
levels would be expected to promote immune adaptability and to direct immune-related clinical outcomes.
Interestingly, participants in Schalow’s trial demonstrated a significant (p<0.01) and transient 117.85 mg/ml
increase of mean SIgA levels 30 minutes post-adjustment as compared to pre-adjustment (mean pre-
adjustment [M] = 311.05, SD = 202.37), mean post-adjustment [M] = 428.90, SD = 329.70); endpoint
measurement two weeks post-adjustment revealed restoration of SIgA levels to indistinguishable from
baseline pre-adjustment [141]. These data demonstrate a transient increase in an indicator of systemic
immunity, consistent with a post-adjustment “boost” in immune adaptability. Consistent with this
observation, changes in most cytokines and immune modulators are transient by their nature and purpose
[277]. Although randomized studies (particularly studies in patients with symptomatic illness) will be
necessary to confirm and expand on this finding, the results of Schalow’s observational study provide
translational research findings connecting the existing body of research on chiropractic care-mediated
modulation of NEI system parameters to a quantitative impact on a clinically significant outcome measure,
predictive of improved immune outcomes.
In sum, current evidence demonstrates that chiropractic care can impact a range of immune and
neuroimmune biomarkers, potentially explaining the observations of immune function improvements
reported by field practitioners in case studies. The possible biological mechanisms by which VS may impact
known NEI modulation pathways are multiple and overlapping, including but not limited to evoking
functional changes within the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway [278], promoting population shifts
within leukocyte populations [279], activation of immune system effectors [239], and indirect effects on
immune function as would be mediated by cortisol flux [230,280]. Future research should be directed at
detailed characterization of the effects of VS and its reduction or resolution on the above parameters, in
relation to overall clinical immune outcomes and in different populations, with the goal of enhancing the
current understanding of the relationship between chiropractic care and immune health and adaptability.
Interferon
The body releases immune-modulatory cytokines termed IFNs upon recognition of viral infection in order to
upregulate the immune response. IFNs also play a vital role in tumor suppression and upregulation of MHC
Class 1 and 2, and signal transduction [281]. At least one IFN, interferon-gamma (INFγ), whose receptors are
expressed on most cell types, has secondary neuroendocrine roles outside of the immune system including
regulation of adipocyte insulin signaling, lipid storage, and differentiation and modulation of neuronal
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 14 of 39
function, connectivity, and social behavior [282]. IFNs are therefore effector molecules within the NEI
supersystem, with multiple roles in integrative physiology.
The present search identified two papers [87,95] detailing the quantitative change in interferon levels with
chiropractic care. The first, a 71-participant RCT employing in vitro analysis of the activity of biomarkers
from blood cells isolated from cohorts of asymptomatic, chronic, or acute LBP patients, described a trend
toward reduction of IFNγ production from cells isolated from SMT-treated patients with either acute or
chronic LBP, but not asymptomatic patients, with a more pronounced effect observed in chronic LBP
patients [95]. A more recent preliminary study [87] assessed IFNγ levels in 19 patients subjected to
adjustments of differing force magnitude. The investigators found that while sham-treated individuals
showed little short-term change in IFNγ levels, individuals subjected to a 400N force tended to decrease
IFNγ levels while those subjected to an 800N force exhibited an increase of IFNγ immediately and 20
minutes post-adjustment. The authors of both papers hypothesize that inflammatory changes from spinal
adjustment may be responsible for the alteration of cytokine levels, including IFNs. While these promising
studies are preliminary, and do not account for VS status per level specifically, both provide an indication
that IFNγ levels may change as a result of chiropractic care directed at the spine.
As with cytokines discussed in the section above, changes to interleukins with chiropractic care may have a
simple biomechanical etiology: mechanical deformation to fascia and/or matrix may evoke the release of
small molecule messengers [242-244]. Future studies should be conducted to confirm or refute the early
observations discussed above and to more specifically elucidate the contribution of VS and the specific
chiropractic adjustment to observed outcomes. Serum multiplex testing may be useful in this endeavor.
Furthermore, future research should be directed towards determining whether observed changes in IFNγ
and other IFN levels are of such a magnitude or duration as to elicit changes in immune, neural, or endocrine
processes or outcomes in vivo.
Interleukin
Interleukins were originally identified as cytokines that carry messages between white blood cells. The
primary function of interleukins is to modulate growth, differentiation, and activation during inflammatory
and immune responses [283] though certain interleukins are pleiotropic, including interleukin 6 (IL-6) [284],
a “master player” amongst cytokines which can stimulate the HPA axis during inflammatory stress, can
modulate both synaptic transmission and neuroimmune communication [279], and has multiple endocrine
effects [285]. Interleukins, like IFNs, are therefore effector molecules with diverse functions within the NEI
supersystem. Biologically, the flux of interleukins can be affected directly by spinal interventions via simple
biomechanical stress [286,287] or may be altered by the presence or change of the inflammatory state of the
vertebral motion segment [288,289].
In our literature search, 10 references [84-87,90-92,95,137,138] were identified offering quantitative
exploration of changes in interleukin levels with spinal adjustment, including five original papers and five
reviews. One recent systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate-quality evidence that spinal
manipulation is better than control in influencing interleukin concentration [86], while another noted a
trend that spinal manipulation reduced the levels of IL-1b compared with sham after an intervention period
of three weeks [84]. Several of the identified RCTs offer in vitro evidence of changes in interleukin release in
cells (including IL-2, IL-6, and IL-1β) isolated from patients subjected to SMT, as compared to control
[91,92,95]; these data, though thought-provoking, have not yet been connected to impact on overall clinical
outcomes in vivo. Of the remaining papers, data within one trial of 21 participants indicate a decrease in
serum levels of IL-6 in the treatment group after nine sessions of instrument-mediated adjustment to the
lumbopelvic hip complex [90]. Most recently, Duarte et al. [87] conducted an assessment of immediate
changes in a select panel of blood biomarkers (pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines) in 19 young healthy
adults subjected to posterior-to-anterior thoracic (T6-T9) SMT using two different force magnitudes.
Changes were noted for levels of interleukins IL-5 and IL-6: elevation of systemic pro-inflammatory
interleukin IL-5 was noted 20 minutes post-intervention at higher force (800N, comparable to 180 lb of force
exerted) as compared to lower force (400N, comparable to 90 lb of force, considered "moderate"), while IL-6
increased immediately post-intervention in the 800N subjects as compared to 400N force. Of note, in the
800N group, both IL-5 and IL-6 levels trend towards increase, whilst with 400N force delivery levels of these
interleukins trend towards decrease during the same time frame. As with previously discussed keyword
searches, one notable weakness in the available body of literature exploring the effect of chiropractic care on
interleukins is the lack of categorization of patient cohort VS status. Future studies should include the
separation of study cohorts into patients bearing VS, per level, versus sham control patients not exhibiting
VS.
Considered in sum, the above data provide supportive evidence that spinal adjustment can transiently
and/or immediately modulate serum interleukin levels. Whether this yields meaningful impacts on or
clinical outcomes of NEI processes or pathologies remains to be explored. With the increased commercial
availability of multiplex testing methods, future studies are recommended to test for alterations in an array
of interleukins measuring short and long-term changes post-intervention. Such considerations would be
expected to be important for a group of cytokines whose actions are transient by their nature [283].
Similarly, future research should be directed towards exploring potential clinical impacts of interleukin flux
caused by chiropractic care, such as acute and longitudinal modulation of the inflammasome and its effects
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 15 of 39
on immunity and pathology [290,291].
Sleep
As a biological process, sleep is an essential element for overall health and function, and disordered sleep is
considered a growing public health concern [292,293]. Disordered sleep is considered a foundational
contributing factor to multiple functional abnormalities in the body, including dysregulation of growth
hormone, cortisol, and the HPA “stress” axis [294,295]. Therefore sleep influences broader dysfunctions
within the NEI supersystem [296,297]. Abnormal sleep patterns have metabolic, cardiovascular, immune,
and inflammatory consequences [298-300] and are correlated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality
[301,302]. Sleep disorders are related to autonomic dysfunction via a bidirectional relationship, and
sympathetic activation may interfere with the brain’s transitions between sleep stages [303,304]. Any
intervention that breaks the vicious cycle of this bidirectional relationship would be expected to enhance
overall health and function. Sleep therefore represents both a powerful modulator of NEI function and a
clinically relevant outcome of care, unto itself, as a biological process. Restoration of normal sleep patterns
would therefore represent a salutogenic process [28,29] as such improvement would be expected to elicit a
positive change in the health ease/disease continuum.
A collection of 29 published papers identified by the present literature search supports the contention that
chiropractic care quantitatively restores or improves sleep [146-174], including 20 case reports, eight trials,
and one review. Of this collection, 18 case studies were identified that documented improvement in total
hours of sleep per night or number of sleep interruptions. The majority of case studies identified describe the
benefits of correction or reduction of VS for improvement of sleep in infant and pediatric populations
[146,147,149,154,158,161,162,167,169-171,174], while several case studies document similar improvements
in adolescents and adults [151,153,155,156,159,173]. Eight trials (primarily observational, pilot, prospective,
or survey-based comparative studies) outlining the quantitative benefit of spinal manipulation therapy for
various aspects of sleep were identified in our search for the infant population [148,163-165], pregnant
women [172], individuals with fibromyalgia (FM) [157,166], or in a normal asymptomatic adult population
[150]. Limitations of these data include lack of RCTs in different populations to explore the effects of
chiropractic care on subjects in different eras of life, and lack of specific VS characterization of subjects in
many of these studies. The observational and clinical data discussed above comprise preliminary
foundational evidence supporting the hypothesis that chiropractic care can improve the biological process
of sleep.
Future studies should be aimed at elucidating what types of sleep challenges respond to chiropractic care, in
which populations, and whether any specific VS patterns are causative in the etiology of sleep difficulties. A
related aspect of sleep biology that may be particularly pertinent to future research by the chiropractic
profession is the relationship between sleep and the glymphatic system, which clears out metabolic wastes
from the brain during normal sleep processes. Glymphatic system function appears to be active primarily
during sleep and follows a circadian rhythm [305]. Impaired glymphatic clearance, as has been hypothesized
to result from VS at C1/atlas in particular [306], has been implicated in Alzheimer’s disease and other
degenerative pathologies [307,308]. Restoration of normal sleep patterns via chiropractic care could reduce
the incidence and prevalence of these and other neurodegenerative diseases, lessening the global social and
economic burden of these pathologies, and therefore this area of study merits further exploration from a
public health perspective.
Sleep and its benefits may be impacted by multiple factors or etiologies arising from the presence of VS, and
this relatively new concept promises to be an active area for chiropractic research in the future. The
biological mechanism by which chiropractic care impacts sleep biology may be autonomic in nature.
Chiropractic care can produce effects on both the parasympathetic and the sympathetic nervous system
[309]; indeed, many of the beneficial outcomes of chiropractic care published in literature, including a
decrease in anxiety [113,156], improvement in HRV [104,119,121], and normalization of blood pressure [46],
may reflect a common etiology of normalization of sympathetic outflow. Restoration of normal sympathetic
and parasympathetic flux may promote ease of transition between sleep stages, breaking the
aforementioned vicious cycle and eliciting an outcome of improved sleep, which would in turn be expected
to evoke broader effects on the body. Future studies of potential impacts of chiropractic care on sleep
parameters may include monitoring by polysomnography in sleep lab settings; alternatively, cohort
longitudinal observational studies may be approached by participant use of "wearable" devices such as the
Oura ring, which have high accuracy of four-stage classification (light, deep, rapid eye movement (REM),
and wake) compared to gold-standard polysomnography [310].
Substance P
Although the substance P was originally considered primarily a neurotransmitter and effector of
musculoskeletal disorders, it is also a key molecule in neurogenic inflammation response, regulating cell
functions by autocrine, paracrine, endocrine, and neuroendocrine mechanisms [311]. Substance P is secreted
and synthesized by nerve cells as well as many types of immune cells, is present in both CSF and blood, and
has roles in a diverse array of physiological processes including control of inflammation [312], regulation of
other cytokines particularly in the GI tract [313], governance of bone homeostasis [314], regulation of
cardiac inflammation [315], modulation of inflammatory CNS disorders [316], and it influences anxiety
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 16 of 39
behaviors via effects on the sympathetic nervous system via activation of the HPA axis and subsequent
release of cortisol [317]. Substance P therefore represents another small molecule effector within the NEI
supersystem that may impact a wide variety of physiological outcomes.
The impact of chiropractic care on substance P has been examined in four reports [86,175-177]. Two reviews
[86,175] offer consideration of the three available early original research studies (including Brennan et al.
[318] which is not specifically included within the present dataset since it was published in 1991) and discuss
limited evidence that substance P increases after spinal manipulation. Of the available original research
studies meeting our inclusion criteria, two describe positive immediate and short-term changes in substance
P after spinal manipulation [176,177], and one paper was identified in our search that describes no change in
substance P [92]. Further research will be necessary to clarify this apparent discrepancy; however, the results
observed in the two former studies suggest that examination of changes in substance P levels in response to
chiropractic care merits further consideration.
Importantly, the two studies describing changes in levels of substance P after chiropractic care measured
not local, but global (serum) changes. Since systemic substance P is a known mediator of NEI processes,
these early data suggest the possibility that substance P may be one of a growing array of neuroendocrine
mediators altered by chiropractic care.
As with cytokines, interleukins, and IFNs discussed previously, changes to substance P with chiropractic
care may have a simple biomechanical etiology [242-244] with both local and systemic effects possible.
Future studies should be conducted to confirm or refute the early observations discussed within this section,
and to more specifically elucidate the contribution of VS and the specific chiropractic adjustment to
observed outcomes.
Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha (TNF-α)
The pleiotropic inflammatory cytokine TNF-α is released by macrophages, NK cells, and lymphocytes and is
central in orchestrating the inflammatory immune response [319]. Implicated in pathologies such as
rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and Crohn’s disease [320], TNF-α also plays a role in
neuropathic pain and neuroinflammation [321] and, therefore, this small molecule messenger functions as
another channel of cross-communication between the nervous system and the immune system.
Six studies meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria for our database search exploring the impact of chiropractic
care on TNF-α [88,89,92,95,96,178], including one case report of two patients, four trials, and a review. Early
studies approaching the question of whether chiropractic care impacts levels of TNF-α [89,92] have yielded
conflicting results. Zhang and Yao [96] proposed a putative biphasic TNF-α response to the SMT concept to
resolve apparent conflicts in these reported observations and interpretations. Methodological differences
should also be noted between the three studies described in this review, such as reported increased TNF-α
levels in an in vitro study of blood isolated from healthy individuals [322] as compared to the observed
reduction of TNF-α in individuals in the remaining two studies of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients,
as assessed by serum levels and in vitro methods respectively [89,92]. Since Zhang and Yao’s 2016 narrative
review, two additional studies have been published. One non-RCT reported that acute or chronic LBP
patients experience a statistically significant decrease in in vitro TNF-α production from blood cells isolated
post-manipulation, as compared to asymptomatic controls [95]. Another recent cohort study also described
the reduction in elevated urinary TNF-α levels after a course of care for LBP, as compared to the control
cohort [88]. Due to the significant methodological differences in this group of studies, no conclusion can be
drawn as to whether TNF-α levels may trend upwards or downwards with adjustment; however, taken
together, these studies certainly suggest that TNF-α can change in response to chiropractic care. The
potential contribution of VS correction specifically to the alteration of TNF-α levels has not yet been
adequately explored, and will be an area for future study.
TNF-α is known to be elevated in response to tissue injury [323] and altered levels may be present with
vertebral subluxation and/or other spinal abnormalities or pathologies [324]. A reduction in TNF-α after
chiropractic intervention may reflect decreased mechanical stress on the neural and structural tissues of
spinal motion segments [325,326]. Additionally, change in urinary levels of TNF-α suggest the possibility
that resolution of spinal pain or mechanical stress may contribute to a more global change in TNF-α levels.
Indeed, elevated serum TNF-α is a marker for systemic inflammation, and over-expression of TNF-α is
found in many acute autoimmune disorders [327]. A decrease in TNF-α may favorably impact the
inflammation complicating autoimmune pathology, and TNF-α is currently a drug target for that purpose
[328]. Whether chiropractic care reproducibly lowers TNF-α in symptomatic patients, and whether this
impacts other processes, is speculative and may be the subject of future studies. Furthermore, future
assessment of potential effects of chiropractic care on TNF-α may be conducted simultaneously with testing
of other inflammasome-active small molecule messengers such as interferons and interleukins, via serum
multiplex testing to assess potentially coordinated changes amongst these NEI modulators.
Discussion: Chiropractic care and integrative physiology
Research in recent decades has demonstrated that no part of the nervous system, central or peripheral,
somatic or autonomic, can be considered independent of the immune system or the endocrine system. These
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 17 of 39
three systems are linked to one another and to other systems inextricably, both directly and indirectly, and
only together do the individual systems of the body create the symphony of dynamic adaptation and
physiological flux that defines optimal functional health and wellness.
The present work represents an endeavor towards considering chiropractic research through the lens of
integrative biology. Herein we consider the intersection of multiple subject areas within the current body of
chiropractic research in the context of function within the established NEI supersystem. It should be noted
that this supersystem unto itself is a member of a larger supersystem, and its interactions with the
microbiome, and that biological effects on the NEI supersystem should in turn be considered in light of the
fully integrated systems of the human body and its overall function and outcomes.
The research works considered here comprise a web of evidence that supports the contention that
chiropractic care delivered to correct or reduce vertebral subluxation may have a quantifiable impact on
mediators and outcomes of the NEI supersystem. The ability to flux within normal physiological parameters
is a requisite property of adaptive systems, and any influence that diminishes the bandwidth of this flux
would be expected to diminish adaptive efficiency under allostatic load. While many individual findings
considered herein do not directly connect changes in specific lab values or mediators to clinical outcomes,
the impacts on the outcomes of blood pressure, heart rate variability, immunity, and sleep demonstrate each
represent improvements in specific aspects of adaptive efficiency within the NEI supersystem. Considered
together, these basic science, observational, and clinical findings support a biologically plausible model in
which the deleterious impact of vertebral subluxation on adaptive capacity can be mitigated via the
chiropractic adjustment. The evidence discussed herein also helps to build a case that a somatic
intervention, through afferent input into the central nervous system, can facilitate global changes through
the interconnected nature of the NEI supersystem.
Connectomics as a framework for understanding NEI outcomes of
chiropractic care
Connectomics is a vital and burgeoning field within neuroscience that considers interrelations between the
functional and anatomical networks of neurons that comprise the brain and peripheral nervous system.
Mapping interrelated neural networks via the Human Connectome Project and mesoscale connectomics
[329-331], and concurrently employing both advanced imaging techniques and transneuronal tracing, has
given scientists and researchers new and unexpected insights into both normal nervous system function and
disease pathology [332,333]. The field of connectomics continues to expand the a priori knowledge base of
neural connectivity by exploring the relationship between brain structure and function at the global level,
but with neuron resolution [331,334]. Importantly, the approaches established within this new field of study
bring forth an opportunity to embark on the next step of human neuroscience: exploration of how different
neural subnetworks co-mingle and may be functionally coupled to influence and coordinate physiological
adaptive responses.
The promise of application of connectomics to our understanding of human neuroscience as a whole and the
impact of chiropractic care specifically is an expansive one. Early discoveries in connectomics included
paradigm-shifting findings such as the discovery that the human cortical visual connectome anatomically
consists of three visual pathways, rather than two as previously thought [335]. These first explorations of
connectomics also brought forth a striking suggestion that the cerebral cortex, the basal ganglia, and the
cerebellum, previously thought to perform largely separate tasks, form an integrated and segregated
network coordinating multiple motor and non-motor functions [336]. Similarly, connectomics research has
elucidated a previously unknown direct motor-limbic interface [337], and has identified connections by
which the sensorimotor cortex may modulate the adrenal medulla to support the coordination of hormonal
and muscle responses to stress [338-340]. Connectomics-centered research has also identified top-down
connections from the somatosensory, primary motor, insular, and medial prefrontal cortex that modulate
sympathetic and parasympathetic control of the stomach [341]. Taken together, these findings represent
unexpected fruits of the exploration of the field of connectomics: evidence of previously underappreciated
mechanisms by which somatosensory afferents as a genre may directly influence or modulate other body
processes such as autonomic function, a topic pertinent to the present integrative review.
It is of note that the daunting task of mapping the structural and functional connections of the nervous
system is eclipsed by the next level of study: exploration of neuromodulation of the neural network as a
whole [342,343]. The study of neuromodulation and its impact on neuroplasticity of the human connectome
is relevant in the discussion of the NEI supersystem as it relates to physiological resilience and adaptability.
The interrelated nature of physiological systems including the neuroendocrine and immune systems is
indeed reflected here: the next frontier, functional connectomics, may present the opportunity to directly
observe the effects of neuromodulation within the NEI via small molecules produced by any of the
subsystems, ranging from neurotransmitters to interleukins or interferons and hormones.
Functional connectomics and the central autonomic network (CAN): A
role for somatosensory afferent influence in cardioautonomic
adaptability
An early entrant to the field of connectomics, the CAN is a functional network of interacting brainstem and
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 18 of 39
forebrain components including the insular cortex, amygdala, hypothalamus, periaqueductal gray matter,
parabrachial complex, nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS), and ventrolateral medulla [344]. Additional
contributing elements more recently identified via fMRI include the thalamus, medial prefrontal cortex
(mPFC), precuneus, anterior cingulate cortex, visual cortex, primary motor cortex, and cerebellum [345].
Together, these components comprise an integral modulator of the body’s adaptive response to internal and
external challenges, receiving sensory input from numerous sources and directing changes in visceromotor,
neuroendocrine, and behavioral responses in order to maintain homeostasis. The CAN is a central player in
the neurovisceral integration (NVI) model of adaptation, which postulates that neural structures mediate a
functional connection between cognitive/emotional regulation and cardiac vagal tone as indexed by HRV
and establishes a connection between stress and physical health [257]. Significant anatomical and
functional overlap is evident between the CAN and the Vagus Afferent Network (VAN) [346], which supports
the importance of the CAN for vagally-mediated cholinergic and sympathetic immune modulation [278]. In
light of the Human Connectome Project and advances in neuroimaging techniques, the CAN is receiving
renewed attention [345,347], and researchers are beginning to elucidate both top-down descending
cortical/central command elements and bottom-up signals ascending to the brainstem that can influence
and modulate autonomic responses [347-349].
Several structures within the CAN that may mediate and/or integrate somatosensory influence on
autonomic output have been identified, including the NTS, CAN forebrain structures, and the cerebellum.
First, animal studies of the NTS, central to the CAN as well as the VAN, have demonstrated that this
structure receives axons from both general somatic afferents (GSA) including spinal dorsal horn neurons
that transmit sensory input from Aδ and C fibre (type III and IV), and viscerosomatic afferents (GVA)
including primary baroreceptor afferents [350]. Importantly, the NTS was positively identified as a site for
integration of general somatic and visceral somatic information due to the observation that sensory input
from skeletal muscle contributes to functional alterations in the arterial baroreflex during ambulation
[223,350,351]. In similar animal studies, the NTS has been shown to receive afferent input from upper
cervical afferents via the intermedius nucleus of the medulla [219,352] and these cervical somatosensory
afferents have been shown to affect autonomic function [220]. In human studies, type III and IV skeletal
muscle afferents inform the exercise pressor reflex, by which somatosensory information from skeletal
muscle modulates ANS-mediated peripheral vasoconstriction [353], and skeletal afferents are also known to
be functionally involved in cardiovascular and ventilatory modulation via the NTS in the exercising human
[354]. Together, these observations suggest the central importance of the NTS for integration of general
somatic and visceral somatic afferent inputs for the generation of autonomic output.
Forebrain structures can also mediate integration of somatosensory information with ongoing autonomic
control of cardiovascular function. The insula and amygdala, in particular, are involved in integration of
passive somatosensory input with baroreceptor information [355]. Similarly, small-fiber muscle
somatosensory pathways have also been identified by fMRI within the supramedullary CAN in human
subjects [356,357]. Passive electrical stimuli to type I and type II (Aa, Ab) somatosensory afferents of the
forearm were shown to be processed by the left posterior insula and to impact the ventral medial prefrontal
cortex and subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, suggesting that integration of sensory information from
proprioceptors, static touch receptors, and joint stretch receptors may be associated with ANS-mediated
suppression of cardiovascular state by way of CAN forebrain modulation [356,357]. Consistent with this
data, the experimental application of repeated passive somatosensory input to congestive heart failure
patients improves arterial baroreceptor sensitivity [358]. Cerebral structures have also been recently shown
by transneuronal tracing studies in animal studies to directly control parasympathetic output to the stomach
via multisynaptic connections [341], and neuronal connections have also been elucidated between both the
motor cortex and the somatosensory cortex and the kidney, suggesting descending control via central
command [340,359]. Similarly, the adrenal medulla, a major sympathetic effector, may be controlled by a
multisynaptic series of neurons that connect it with the motor cortex, a finding that provides a putative link
between body movement and modulation of stress [340]. These observations and other recent advances
[360] suggest the potential importance of integrated somatosensory information, such as might be generated
by spinal movement or impacted by vertebral subluxation, for the motor and somatosensory cortex-mediated
modulation of autonomic responses.
Lastly, cerebellar relay provides a third source of somatosensory representation and integration within the
CAN. The aforementioned NTS receives cerebellar proximal somatosensory input from the neck and trunk
via the Fastigial Nucleus (FN) [361]. Direct connections also mediate communication between the
cerebellum and the hypothalamus have been described which are implicated in somato-visceral integration
via affecting both autonomic function and immune function [336,362-364].
An important question to consider is whether autonomically-mediated alterations in organ function can be
traced backward to somatosensory modulation of the effector arm of the neural adaptation loop, or motor
cortex modulation, given the reciprocal nature of connections between the sensory and motor cortices [365].
Recently, RV-mediated transneuronal tracing has been employed in animal models to elucidate the multi-
synaptic neural circuits linking higher brain function to autonomic output and organ function [366]. RV-
mediated transneuronal tracing in animal models has clearly demonstrated descending influence of motor
cortex on adrenal medulla [338]. Pertinent to the chiropractic field, this output to the adrenal medulla
originates largely from trunk and axial areas, suggesting a link between cortical control of “core” muscles
and regulation of sympathetic output [340]. Similarly, both motor and nonmotor cortical areas were shown
to contain output neurons that indirectly influence kidney function [359]: Specific cortical areas implicated
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 19 of 39
include the primary motor cortex, primary somatosensory cortex, insula, and mPFC. Interestingly, the
authors noted that these connections also originate predominantly from trunk representations within these
cortical areas, and therefore the authors of this work have proposed a hypothesis that a map of visceromotor
representation may be embedded within the classic homuncular map of skeletomotor representation [359].
A third line of experiments has recently outlined cortical influence over both sympathetic and
parasympathetic arms of control of stomach function. Cortical neurons influencing sympathetic output to
the stomach were found to originate from the primary motor cortex and primary somatosensory cortex,
regions linked to skeletomotor regulation and control, and similarly, cortical neurons that influence
parasympathetic output to the stomach were found to originate in the mPFC and insula [341]. While
multisynaptic connections linking cortical areas to modulation of autonomic function have not yet been
confirmed in human studies, the animal study findings above clearly indicate the importance of both
sensory and motor influence over autonomic modulation of organ function in mammalian systems and
indicate the need for further exploration of this phenomenon and its potential implications for human
health.
Taken together, these diverse studies clearly indicate that multiple and overlapping spinal and muscle
somatosensory afferent pathways, of all fiber types, are hard-wired into the CAN and vagus afferent
network, via the NTS and other portals of entry, and can inform or influence autonomic control of bodily
organs under different conditions. These studies demonstrate that the somatosensory division of the
nervous system cannot be considered as separate from the autonomic division: somatic afferent information
is represented and can be considered in generation of an autonomic response at multiple levels. Since the
ANS directly regulates immune system function, by both sympathetic and parasympathetic pathways
[367,368], multiple forms of somatosensory and viscerosensory information must be integrated in order to
coordinate a broad-scale NEI response to a stress or challenge. The relative importance of somatosensory
afferents to integrated and coordinated adaptive responses has not been explored at this level of detail at
this time, and this concept comprises a potentially interesting field of exploration.
Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS): Clinical evidence that somatosensory
afferent input can evoke integrative endocrine and immune responses
and influence clinical outcomes
VNS, the modulation of vagus nerve efferent activity by electrical somatosensory afferent activation, has
been explored for a century for its physiological benefits and was approved as neuromodulation therapy in
1997 for the alleviation of seizures [369,370]. Traditional VNS has been demonstrated to evoke an array of
outcomes within the NEI axis, including improvement of chronic pain syndromes [371], improvement in
depression [372,373], prevention of epileptic seizure [374], alleviation of irritable bowel disease [375] and
Crohn’s disease [375], reduction of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis [376] and modulation of splenic
function [368]. The observation of measurable, repeatable, diverse physiological outcomes resulting from
stimulation delivered to the vagus nerve, including somatic afferent fibers, underlines the concept that
modulation of somatosensory afferent information represents an underappreciated and important
opportunity to influence salutogenic adaptive responses in the body.
Only recently has a non-invasive alternative to traditional VNS, transcutaneous VNS, been explored as a
therapeutic neuromodulatory intervention [377]. While traditional (invasive) VNS requires surgical
implantation of an electrical neuromodulator directly connecting with the vagus nerve, newer, non-invasive
modes of VNS include cervical VNS (cVNS), and transcutaneous VNS (tVNS, including auricular
transcutaneous VNS, taVNS). The growing field of taVNS, in particular, capitalizes on Arnold’s nerve (also
known as the auricular branch of the vagus nerve) that serves the pinna and/or tragus of the ear, sending
general sensory afferent input (GSA, via fiber-type Ab [378]) to the vagus afferent network via the NTS
[379,380]. The overall neural pathways of taNVS are similar to those activated by either traditional or cVNS,
as confirmed by fMRI [381,382]. Preliminary taVNS research appears to echo established outcome findings of
VNS, but with an important distinction relevant to this paper’s considered topic: these outcomes are elicited
with general somatosensory input alone rather than via visceral/interoceptive pathways. Outcomes
observed for taVNS include modulation of depression [383,384], migraine [385,386], and GI function [387],
modulation of sympathetic nervous system activity [388,389], and recently, modulation of cytokines and
chemokines in RA patients [390]. That general somatosensory afferent input elicits quantitative,
reproducible, diverse outcomes not limited to the somatosensory system provides support to the contention
that somatosensory input modulation by vertebral subluxation and its correction by the chiropractic
adjustment may have farther-reaching effects than simply neuromusculoskeletal.
Electrical neuromodulation of vagus nerve activity is currently being studied in over 200 clinical trials for
the treatment of a number of NEI conditions related to vagus nerve activity. The goal of this form of
bioelectric medicine is to restore normal, healthy patterns of downstream nerve impulses by modulating
input to the Vagus nerve [391]. This basic premise of VNS, that input to the brain can modulate output from
the brain, is consistent with Kent’s proposed biological mechanisms of action of vertebral subluxation
theory [181], in which disturbance to normal afferent input to the brain via VS is hypothesized to elicit
abnormal output from the brain (effector functions). The efficacy of VNS as observed by its clinical
outcomes, then, may provide a biologically plausible explanation for the observed effects of correcting
vertebral subluxations and thereby restoring normal afferent input to the brain, eliciting a change in effector
functions dictated by the brain.
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 20 of 39
One important question with respect to taVNS somatosensory afferent input is the exact nature and
functional role of the observed GSA-mediated activation of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1): does this
input directly or indirectly influence the autonomic nervous system? Currently, it is unclear whether such
activation of S1 is directly/causally related to ANS modulation, or whether S1 activation with taVNS is a less
relevant by-product observed after activation of brainstem (NTS) and other cortical structures, though these
possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Three observations suggest that GSA can also modulate ANS activity
directly via S1. First, the pressor reflex or muscle-specific nerve activity (MSNA), by which skeletal
somatosensory afferents influence sympathetic vasomotor outflow [353,392], demonstrates the importance
of functional coupling of somatosensory information to modulation of sympathetic outflow. Interestingly,
the pressor reflex was replicated using taVNS [393] rather than electrical stimulation of muscle afferents,
suggesting overlap or confluence of these sensory inputs. Second, median nerve somatosensory evoked
field(s) have been shown to influence response to VNS: in a cohort study, functional connectivity of
sensorimotor and limbic areas activated by median nerve activity was shown to predict response to VNS
[394]. Third, functional connectivity studies on fibromyalgia (FM) patients have demonstrated functional
alterations in somatosensory connectivity and have shown that painful somatosensory stimulation
decreases autonomic output (HF-HRV) [395]. Taken together, these findings underscore that somatosensory
afferent input, via the NTS, the primary somatosensory cortex S1, or both, is a causal rather than simply
temporally correlated factor in VNS-mediated autonomic modulation.
Supporting the nascent concept that multiple modes of sensory input can modulate autonomic outcomes, it
is of particular interest that afferent input from CAN and VAN converge to common neural signaling
pathways. Both networks may be activated by Ab fiber somatosensory input via the NTS, and therefore
observed outcomes could be attributed to activation within either the CAN or the VAN, providing a form of
overlap and redundancy commonly found in integrated systems. The pathways activated by taVNS have
been mapped by multiple methods and provide a clear example of where somatosensory stimulation can
evoke NEI outcomes. Thus, tVNS as well as other non-invasive bioelectric stimulation methods can serve as
a proof of concept demonstrating how a somatosensory modality can have neuromodulatory effects on the
NEI axis and affect neuroimmune outcomes, and may help to explain the somatovisceral effects observed
with manual approaches described in the present review. tVNS also provides research methodology to test if
manual approaches have similar or adjacent effects in connectomics research.
The chiropractic connection: Neurostructural function, somatosensory
afferents, and coordinated adaptation
Through the lens of dynamical and integrative systems biology [396] this paper presents a theory that
chiropractic care delivered to eliminate or reduce vertebral subluxation (represented by blue box, Figure 2),
which alters quantity, quality, or nature of afferent or efferent input (red arrows), would restore the integrity
of information flow between the body and the central nervous system (upper green arrows). By
reconstituting normal information flow and integration, the specific chiropractic adjustment would promote
restoration of appropriate adaptive commands sent from the nervous system to the body/periphery. Efferent
outputs include both motor and autonomic adaptations, which in turn could impact immune or endocrine
functions, given the interconnected nature of these systems.
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 21 of 39
FIGURE 2: Theoretical model of the impact of vertebral subluxation on
neural information flow and on the extended neuro-endocrine immune
supersystem. Green arrows represent normal afferent and efferent
neural information flow; red arrows indicate altered afferent or efferent
flow via vertebral subluxation (blue box). The chiropractic adjustment
delivered to eliminate or reduce vertebral subluxation would restore
normal afferent/integrative/efferent flow (green arrows).
NS, nervous system; ES, endocrine syste m; IS, immune system; SSA, somatosensor y afferent; GSA, general
somatic afferent; SVA, special visceral afferent; GVA, general visceral afferent
The role of spinal manipulation or chiropractic adjustment evoking somatosensory afferents that affect
afferent function within the central nervous system has been explored and demonstrated in both animal and
human models [397-399] and an established body of research has elegantly described how chiropractic
adjustments or SMT can generate quantifiable changes in neurophysiological activity at both the spinal and
supraspinal levels [191,192,400-406]. These changes include improvements in movement time, muscle
contraction strength, somatosensory integration, joint position sense, cortical drive, and spinal motor
neuron excitability. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that either chiropractic adjustment or SMT
to the spine evokes somatosensory afferent input that can alter neural output. It follows, then, that both
vertebral subluxation and its physical correction via chiropractic care may alter quality or quantity of
afferent input, with downstream physiological effects. Whether autonomic or visceral effects of any specific,
per-level vertebral subluxation are subclinically or clinically relevant, or whether correction of that putative
neuro-spinal abnormality will have predictable clinically meaningful outcomes, will be areas for future
study.
Current chiropractic research methods concerns and future directions
As with any nascent field of study, further research will be necessary to comprehensively trace causative and
directive changes eliciting NEI clinical outcomes via chiropractic care. To facilitate this process, such
research should incorporate updates to several methodological flaws commonly observed in currently
available chiropractic research. The following research methodology concerns should be considered: (1)
attention to data interpretability issues that may arise due to use of asymptomatic subject cohorts; (2)
failure to consider vertebral subluxation as an experimental variable; (3) awareness of the consequences of
inadequate sham controls, (4) simplification of study or trial design, to render studies more comparable to
one another to allow for reliable meta-analysis; (5) incorporation of both pre-adjustment and post-
adjustment measurements, of both vertebral subluxation indicators and clinical outcomes, to strengthen
conclusions of temporal correlation or causation of correction or reduction of vertebral subluxation with the
emergence of clinical outcomes; (6) study design that accounts for the possibility of either positive or
negative change as compared to baseline value, rather than simply "improvement;" (7) clear delineation of
whether participants and/or cohorts are taking medication(s) that may complicate interpretation of
outcomes data; and (8) consistent use of specific and appropriate terminology in research reports in the
future, so as to correct the historical conflation of the distinct terms "chiropractic adjustment" and "spinal
manipulation." Since the level of detail of research method planning determines the quality of outcomes
data, corrections to the following issues should be incorporated into future studies so that chiropractic
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 22 of 39
research may yield the most interpretable and meaningful information possible.
First, the use of asymptomatic patients (“healthy volunteers'') as a study cohort brings forth a question as to
whether a measured experimental parameter would be anticipated to shift away from a normal (“healthy”)
baseline value, to yield quantitative outcomes or measurable results, with intervention. Complexity within a
biological system is considered a ubiquitous phenomenon that allows living systems to adapt to external
perturbations whilst preserving homeostasis [407]. While normalization of an abnormal parameter would
certainly be hypothesized or anticipated in a cohort of symptomatic/abnormal study cohort, the entropy of a
self-governing system within a normal cohort would be expected to utilize feedback loops to maintain a
balanced overall constellation of biological setpoints with no net change (dynamic equilibrium). Induction
of change from a normal setpoint towards a perturbed value may flow against the synergy of the overall
system and may evoke an auto-corrective response towards restoration of the system’s normal setpoint, an
outcome that would be observed as “no [net] change.” In the context of the present collection of research
works, several papers describe use of asymptomatic, normal individuals as study participants. Examples
include the use of normotensive individuals to study whether chiropractic adjustments alter blood pressure,
use of healthy volunteers for HRV studies, and use of healthy, uninfected patients for cytokine research.
Results from the aforementioned studies may therefore be skewed towards outcomes of no net observable
change, which would lead to inappropriate confirmation of the null hypothesis. Perhaps research designed
to explore whether chiropractic care affects flux of any physiological parameter may yield more meaningful
results if the chosen parameter is abnormal at baseline value in a study cohort, rather than at a normal
setpoint. Further, biological setpoints may differ significantly amongst "normal" participants, since a
setpoint is typically a range plus or minus standard deviation, rather than a single value. Observational
cohort or case studies in which individual patients, or a cohort of patients with similar baseline
characteristics, may be compared to their own baseline value after intervention might be useful here to
account for natural setpoint variability. Also worth considering is the possibility that within a given study,
participants with the most extreme "abnormal" values would be expected to have more significant outcomes,
simply from a mathematical standpoint. Therefore, inclusion of a cohort of participants with strongly
abnormal baseline values for an experimental parameter, rather than "healthy volunteers," may be a more
preferable criteria to yield significant or meaningful data.
Second, failure to assess for vertebral subluxation as a clinical rationale for providing a per-level
intervention of spinal adjustment or manipulation constitutes an error that may lead to inappropriate use of
an intervention or inappropriate location of an intervention. As discussed previously, to design studies
appraising changes in neuroendocrine markers via chiropractic care presupposes the existence of a spinal
condition (vertebral subluxation) that affects function within the NEI supersystem. If vertebral subluxation
is the causative factor responsible for maladaptive neural changes that impact NEI supersystem flux, an
adjustive thrust targeted at a vertebral segment without vertebral subluxation (as per delivery of spinal
manipulation) may fail to correct a cause that is not present, leading to lack of measurable outcomes, or
potentially worsening of outcomes. In other words, from a research methods standpoint, the functional
condition of the vertebral level is more important than the spinal level of the delivered intervention per se
for eliciting outcomes with the intervention. As such, the presence of vertebral subluxation in a study cohort
presents a variable to characterize per level and per subject, lest it present a de facto confounding variable in
both control and intervention arms. Vertebral subluxation at a segment is thought to create a physiological
microenvironment with different tissue characteristics (including local inflammation and changes in local
muscle tone that elicit alterations in central motor control [202]) as compared to a normal vertebral
segment. Assumption of per-level equivalency without adequate objective characterization may
unintentionally result in random presence or absence of vertebral subluxation(s) in either or both control
and/or intervention arm, a classic confounding error in research methods. For these reasons, research that
endeavors to explore the influence of a spinal abnormality (vertebral subluxation) whose adjustment may
impact neuro-endocrine immune processes and/or outcomes should be carefully planned so as to
appropriately control for presence or absence of VS in study cohorts, to ensure that outcomes are clear and
not confounded. Incorporating the diligence of characterization of vertebral subluxation per level [182] in
prospective participants allows for allocation of normative (displaying no vertebral subluxation at the
vertebral level to be addressed) participants into a control cohort, to serve as a comparator for the effects of
the adjustment, or no adjustment, on participants confirmed to bear vertebral subluxation per level.
Vertebral subluxation has a considerable prevalence in the human population, as measured by MRI [183] and
epidemiological [408] studies, and may be present at any or multiple spinal levels, underscoring the
necessity of accounting for its influence in research methods design. Failure to account for and control for
vertebral subluxation as a clinical variable therefore comprises a research methods flaw, correction of which
will be necessary to generate clear and non-confounded data.
Third, the availability of validated sham controls has long presented a research methods problem within
chiropractic research. The primary challenges of sham selection in chiropractic research include using a
maneuver that is indistinguishable from the intervention, and choosing a maneuver that does not elicit
somatosensory effects that may overlap with those of an adjustment/manipulation. Unfortunately, an
“adjusted” versus “non-adjusted” intervention is often easily distinguished by the patient in the case of
traditional manual adjusting, impacting the viability of blinding/placebo control. Further, use of drop table
mechanism without contact as a sham control for Toggle adjusting, or thrust without cavitation (or thrust on
another segment) for traditional manual adjusting may elicit a response unto itself, and whether the sham
intervention elicits a response from the body as compared to no intervention is often uncharacterized.
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 23 of 39
Certain chiropractic methodologies for spinal adjustment may be better suited for research purposes. For
example, the use of instrument and light force techniques allow for the use of sham control that may be
more indistinguishable to a patient than a high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust. These techniques can further
be studied by studying the impact of these techniques when applied on regions with and without vertebral
subluxation in order to compare the neurophysiologic effects of the thrust as compared to the effects of
correcting the spinal lesion. The employment of chiropractic adjustive approaches such as National Upper
Cervical Chiropractic Association (NUCCA) or Atlas Orthogonal (AO) techniques, both of which utilize a light
touch with vectored force that cannot be easily distinguished by trial participants from sham light touch
without vectored force, offers a reasonable approach to satisfy the first condition. A second “sham” control,
with no intervention whatsoever, may also be employed in future studies to discern whether the intended
sham control elicits outcomes indistinguishable from light touch/no force sham.
Fourth, clear interpretation of results yielded from any experimental system benefits from reduction of
variables wherever possible. Vertebral subluxation can be present within the spinal column singly, or in any
combination or permutation of multiple subluxations [183] and it is most often observed by clinicians as a
pattern or constellation of subluxations, rather than affecting only one segment. The specific constellation
of vertebral subluxations would be expected to differ from person to person, due to unique life traumas and
microtraumas, experiences, and habits. Given the possible permutations of vertebral subluxations within the
spinal column, identifying a cohort of individuals who bear the exact same vertebral subluxation pattern for
clinical trial purposes would be anticipated to be challenging. Selecting one segment for
experimental/adjustive intervention, rather than adjusting multiple segments of the spine during one
chiropractic session, may yield more clearly interpretable results. Adding to this problem of variability,
methods to analyze/detect and adjust vertebral subluxation are many and diverse within the chiropractic
profession. The permutations and variability of vertebral subluxation analysis methods and adjustive
interventions make comparability between results from different clinicians challenging. With these
variability issues in mind, well-designed n=1 studies [409] (case studies) and case series reports provide a
unique resource for reporting chiropractic outcomes. In n=1 studies, the study subject’s baseline before care
for any measured parameter serves as an internal control/comparator, allowing the investigator to infer
cause and effect from correction of vertebral subluxation, particularly if no other variables in the patient’s
lifestyle (such as addition/subtraction of supplements, exercises) change between baseline and intervention.
Additionally, if a patient achieves a measurable change with a series of adjustments but stops care and
subsequently relapses to baseline condition, re-introduction of care with reproduction of the same outcomes
as previous may speak to reproducibility of effects of the adjustment. Similarly, observational case series
studies can follow objective changes in cohorts of participants bearing similar subluxation presentations
over time, and these longitudinal observational studies can yield different insights than short-term studies.
One must keep in mind the limitations of case reports, case series, and observational trials as lacking overall
generalizability due to the potential presence of confounders, and one also must keep in mind that the
quality of data obtained will always depend on what parameters were measured at baseline, since a baseline
value cannot be obtained after care has been delivered.
Fifth, many available studies fail to report reduction or resolution of the indicators of vertebral subluxation
with chiropractic adjustment, choosing to report clinical outcomes only. The omission of a direct
comparison of pre- versus post-adjustment indicators weakens conclusions that contend that clinical
outcomes are a result of either spinal manipulation or correction or reduction of vertebral subluxation [410].
Notably, some investigators have incorporated pre- versus post-adjustment measurements of their vertebral
subluxation indicators [46,48,141,156], which strengthens the conclusions of these particular studies.
Disciplined reporting of both pre-adjustment and post-adjustment vertebral subluxation indicators is
requisite for establishing temporal correlation of correction or reduction of vertebral subluxation with
clinical outcomes, or establishing a causative link thereof.
Sixth, a study design that accounts for either positive or negative change of parameter as compared to
baseline may be appropriate for assessment of clinical variables whose change may be positive, negative, or
biphasic. Blood pressure, cortisol, and tumor necrosis factor have been discussed previously in this work as
examples of parameters that may not necessarily change in mathematically positive direction; measurement
of HRV may also benefit from a study design that teases out both positive and negative changes, both of
which can be clinically significant [250].
Seventh, medication use constitutes an experimental study variable that can affect outcomes. Future studies
should be designed to minimize the possibility that medication use might influence outcomes as a
confounding variable, and published reports should clearly and transparently state whether medication use
in the study cohort was specified as exclusion criteria.
Lastly, both theoretical and practical distinctions between the non-synonymous terms "chiropractic care"
and "spinal manipulation therapy" have been outlined herein, and these distinctions have important
implications to study design and data interpretation. Future research reports should take care to specify
which mode of care was employed per study, in the interests of clarity, transparency, and integrity.
Toward realization of an EIP model of chiropractic care
The EBP paradigm was created as a means to normalize patient care in a given discipline according to
findings of high-quality research. While its strengths include adoption of a universal standard of care via
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 24 of 39
research-based guidelines per discipline, a limitation of EBP is whether the conclusions of available RCTs
apply to the unique patient as presenting to the clinician. Often, lacking a perfect match between RCT
inclusion/exclusion conditions and patient presentation, a clinician will apply an intervention “off-label,”
which in effect is contradictory to the intended practice of evidence-based care. The quality and character of
RCTs dictate their applicability and generalizability, and taken together these elements comprise the
limiting factors for whether EBP can truly be followed.
EIP was proposed as a modification of the concept of EBP, encouraging more reliance for clinical decision-
making on all available evidence - not limited to RCTs but instead inclusive of observational studies such as
case series, cohort studies, and case studies [411,412], and inclusive of both clinician experience and patient
preference. Of note, the unique value of case studies is that the subject of a case study effectively serves as
their own negative control pre- versus post-intervention, allowing for case studies to describe unique patient
presentations such as a particular constellation of vertebral subluxations. Case-matched, well-done case
studies can therefore be an opportunity for clinicians looking to glean potentially important clinical insights
whilst in their analysis process [413]. The EIP model recognizes clinicians as critical thinkers and decision-
makers. It allows clinicians to make appropriate care decisions based on multiple factors involved with
patient care including but not limited to all available evidence, patient preferences, clinical
circumstances/environment, clinician knowledge/experience, and clinician level of training which may not
necessarily match the criteria outlined in a clinical trial [44]. Given the challenges of the widespread
prevalence of neuro-spinal functional abnormality/vertebral subluxation considered in the context of the
number of permutations/combinations of multi-level VS that may be possible within a population [183,408],
strict EBP based on RCTs may effectively be of less utility and applicability as compared to the adoption of
an EIP model, an approach that considers a wider swath of evidence inclusive of all available levels of
evidence. Consistent with this possibility, it is important to bear in mind that the clinically observed
benefits and outcomes of chiropractic care are person-specific, owing to factors affecting the unique
individual, underscoring the premise that EIP represents a more appropriate construct for clinical decision-
making in chiropractic care.
That chiropractic care impacts nervous system function and adaptability has been well-established;
however, in recent years, certain entities within the chiropractic profession have endeavored to limit the
scope of chiropractic to neuromusculoskeletal, musculoskeletal or pain-based only. This paper establishes
the short-sightedness of such an impetus, and outlines an evidence-centered opportunity for exploration of
the impact of chiropractic care on the connected systems of the human body. The integrative review
presented herein describes a broad net of evidence that vertebral subluxation, and chiropractic adjustment
targeted at the vertebral subluxation specifically, can modulate a variety of neuro-endocrine immune
functional changes and outcomes. Unequivocal evidence “proving” conclusively that chiropractic care
produces predictable, reproducible outcomes in all patient populations has not yet been fully elucidated,
however the available evidence supports a role for chiropractic care for facilitating restoration of normal
neuro-endocrine immune functions and outcomes. This includes, but is not limited to, normalization of
blood pressure, augmentation of cardioautonomic adaptability as measured by HRV, modulation of immune
response as measured by cytokine and antibody secretion, and improvement of the biologically requisite
process of sleep which is in turn foundational for repair, regeneration, and maintenance of the human body.
In an integrative physiology model, chiropractic care as discussed in this work may have wide-ranging
effects on the coordination and adaptability of body systems beyond the musculoskeletal system with
potential for short- and long-term salutogenic outcomes. The research question going forward is not
whether chiropractic affects the NEI system, but rather to what extent, and under what conditions, with
what impacts, on which clinical outcomes. Therefore in an EIP model, clinicians should be not only free but
also encouraged to summarize any available research findings pertinent to any given clinical case, describe
the findings of the studies (including strengths and limitations as well as applicability) in the context of
their own clinical experience, and offer patients care options to consider.
Furthermore, embracing an EIP model of clinical practice will protect and encourage the opportunity for
observations to be made and may drive clinical research by field practitioners to continue advancing
research and understanding of the potential benefits of chiropractic care delivered to address vertebral
subluxation. Embracing EIP may transform the question of “How can chiropractic care benefit overall
health?” to an updated question of, “How does vertebral subluxation interfere with normal human
physiology, and how can chiropractic care be utilized to promote salutogenesis for the maintenance of
healthy adaptability?” As such, this review contributes to the EIP model of chiropractic care, driving
advances in patient-centered care. Future studies employing this upgraded clinical framework/paradigm will
be requisite to investigate farther-reaching mechanisms toward our understanding of how chiropractic care
for the location and correction of vertebral subluxation, can promote human physiological adaptability.
Conclusions
Integrative physiology and connectomics have established the interconnected and interdependent nature of
the body’s systems. While it has long been clear that chiropractic care impacts information flow and
integration within the nervous system, current research suggests that consideration of broader physiologic
effects of chiropractic adjustment on the NEI system is appropriate. The present analysis of literature
outlines research findings that suggest chiropractic care may modulate NEI processes, including regulation
of blood pressure, HRV, and sleep, as well as preclinical evidence of modulation of immune intermediates
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 25 of 39
including cytokines and antibodies. Considered together via an inductivist approach, this collection of
research suggests the possibility of chiropractic care for salutogenic facilitation of the body’s intrinsic
integrated physiological processes by promoting aspects of neural adaptability and resilience, resulting in a
positive shift along the body's health ease/disease continuum. Biologically plausible mechanisms by which
VS and chiropractic care may modulate multiple physiological outcomes are discussed, drawing from
established findings in the field of autonomic neuroscience, thereby strengthening our hypothesis. A noted
limitation of this integrative review is that each subsection of articles discussed herein should in the future
be adequately assessed via systematic and/or meta-analysis, to examine the depth of evidence within each
category. Additional studies on each of the preliminary findings discussed herein will be necessary for such
analyses, and future chiropractic research efforts should be planned carefully so as to avoid several research
method errors that have complicated the interpretation of prior studies or their appropriateness for
systematic or meta-analysis. The present work is offered as a framework for continuing reductionist studies
that will be necessary to definitively establish a relationship between chiropractic care and modulation of
integrative physiology via the NEI supersystem, and to elucidate precise neural mechanisms by which
chiropractic care may elicit clinically relevant effects on integrative bodily functions. The present review
also contributes to the practice of evidence-informed chiropractic care, driving advances in patient-centered
care by establishing a compendium and analysis of studies for consideration by the chiropractic field
practitioners as they navigate patient care.
Additional Information
Author Contributions
All authors have reviewed the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the
work.
Concept and design: Amy Haas, Christopher Kent, Matthew McCoy
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Amy Haas, Jonathan Chung, Brooke Mills
Drafting of the manuscript: Amy Haas, Jonathan Chung
Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Amy Haas, Jonathan Chung,
Christopher Kent, Brooke Mills, Matthew McCoy
Disclosures
Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the
following: Payment/services info: Research Fellowship Grant from The Foundation for Vertebral
Subluxation (ALH). Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial
relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an
interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other
relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dr. Jack Bourla and Dr. Stephanie Ryan for support, encouragement, grammatical editorial
assistance, and tater tots. This work is dedicated to the late Dave Russell, BSc (psych), BSc (chiro), Cert TT.
His contributions to our profession will be remembered, honored, and continued.
References
1. Selye H: The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases of adaptation . J Allergy. 1946, 17:231-89.
10.1016/0021-8707(46)90159-1
2. Antonovsky A: The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion . Health Promot Int. 1996,
11:11-18. 10.1093/heapro/11.1.11
3. McEwen BS: Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: central role of the brain . Physiol Rev.
2007, 87:873-904. 10.1152/physrev.00041.2006
4. Sieck GC: Physiology in perspective: the importance of integrative physiology . Physiology (Bethesda). 2017,
32:180-1. 10.1152/physiol.00009.2017
5. Schiller M, Ben-Shaanan TL, Rolls A: Neuronal regulation of immunity: why, how and where? . Nat Rev
Immunol. 2021, 21:20-36. 10.1038/s41577-020-0387-1
6. Reardon C, Murray K, Lomax AE: Neuroimmune communication in health and disease . Physiol Rev. 2018,
98:2287-316. 10.1152/physrev.00035.2017
7. Pavlov VA, Tracey KJ: Neural regulation of immunity: molecular mechanisms and clinical translation . Nat
Neurosci. 2017, 20:156-66. 10.1038/nn.4477
8. Elenkov IJ, Wilder RL, Chrousos GP, Sylvester Vizi E: The sympathetic nerve - an integrative interface
between two supersystems: the brain and the immune system. Pharmacol Rev. 2000, 52:595-638.
9. Louveau A, Harris TH, Kipnis J: Revisiting the mechanisms of CNS immune privilege . Trends Immunol.
2015, 36:569-77. 10.1016/j.it.2015.08.006
10. Rustenhoven J, Drieu A, Mamuladze T, et al.: Functional characterization of the dural sinuses as a
neuroimmune interface. Cell. 2021, 184:1000-16.e27. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.12.040
11. Frohman LA: Neuroendocrinology. Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. Squire LA (ed): Academic Press,
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 26 of 39
Amsterdam; 2009. 351-4. 10.1016/B978-008045046-9.01184-0
12. Pavlov VA, Wang H, Czura CJ, Friedman SG, Tracey KJ: The cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway: a
missing link in neuroimmunomodulation. Mol Med. 2003, 9:125-34.
13. Pavlov VA, Tracey KJ: Neural circuitry and immunity. Immunol Res. 2015, 63:38-57. 10.1007/s12026-015-
8718-1
14. Scanzano A, Cosentino M: Adrenergic regulation of innate immunity: a review . Front Pharmacol. 2015,
6:171. 10.3389/fphar.2015.00171
15. Hanes WM, Olofsson PS, Talbot S, et al.: Neuronal circuits modulate antigen flow through lymph nodes .
Bioelectron Med. 2016, 3:18-28. 10.15424/bioelectronmed.2016.00001
16. Sundman E, Olofsson PS: Neural control of the immune system . Adv Physiol Educ. 2014, 38:135-9.
10.1152/advan.00094.2013
17. Kennedy RH, Silver R: Neuroimmune signaling: cytokines and the CNS . Neuroscience in the 21st Century.
Pfaff DW, Volkow ND (ed): Springer New York, New York; 2016. 1-41. 10.1007/978-1-4614-6434-1_174-1
18. Dantzer R: Neuroimmune interactions: from the brain to the immune system and vice versa . Physiol Rev.
2018, 98:477-504. 10.1152/physrev.00039.2016
19. Hodo TW, de Aquino MT, Shimamoto A, Shanker A: Critical neurotransmitters in the neuroimmune
network. Front Immunol. 2020, 11:1869. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01869
20. Huh JR, Veiga-Fernandes H: Neuroimmune circuits in inter-organ communication . Nat Rev Immunol. 2020,
20:217-28. 10.1038/s41577-019-0247-z
21. Complementary, alternative, or integrative health: What’s in a name? . (2021). Accessed: February 25, 2024:
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name.
22. Verburg-van Kemenade BM, Cohen N, Chadzinska M: Neuroendocrine-immune interaction: evolutionarily
conserved mechanisms that maintain allostasis in an ever-changing environment. Dev Comp Immunol.
2017, 66:2-23. 10.1016/j.dci.2016.05.015
23. Riley RD, Jackson D, Salanti G, Burke DL, Price M, Kirkham J, White IR: Multivariate and network meta-
analysis of multiple outcomes and multiple treatments: rationale, concepts, and examples. BMJ. 2017,
358:j3932. 10.1136/bmj.j3932
24. Dagenais S, Haldeman S: Chiropractic. Prim Care. 2002, 29:419-37. 10.1016/s0095-4543(01)00005-7
25. Goncalves G, Le Scanff C, Leboeuf-Yde C: Primary prevention in chiropractic practice: a systematic review .
Chiropr Man Therap. 2017, 25:9. 10.1186/s12998-017-0140-4
26. Kent C: Models of vertebral subluxation: a review . J Vert Sublux Res. 1996, 1:1-7.
27. Senzon SA: The chiropractic vertebral subluxation part 9: complexes, models, and consensus from 1979 to
1995. J Chiropr Humanit. 2018, 25:130-45. 10.1016/j.echu.2018.10.007
28. Mittelmark MB, Bauer GF, Vaandrager L, et al.: The Handbook of Salutogenesis . Springer International
Publishing, Cham (CH); 2021. 10.1007/978-3-030-79515-3
29. Guidi J, Lucente M, Sonino N, Fava GA: Allostatic load and its impact on health: a systematic review .
Psychother Psychosom. 2021, 90:11-27. 10.1159/000510696
30. Degenhardt BF, Johnson JC, Gross SR, Hagan C, Lund G, Curry WJ: Preliminary findings on the use of
osteopathic manipulative treatment: outcomes during the formation of the practice-based research
network, DO-Touch.NET. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2014, 114:154-70. 10.7556/jaoa.2014.033
31. Marin T, Maxel X, Robin A, Stubbe L: Evidence-based assessment of potential therapeutic effects of adjunct
osteopathic medicine for multidisciplinary care of acute and convalescent COVID-19 patients. Explore (NY).
2021, 17:141-7. 10.1016/j.explore.2020.09.006
32. Yuan QL, Wang P, Liu L, et al.: Acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain: a meta-analysis and meta-regression
of sham-controlled randomized clinical trials. Sci Rep. 2016, 6:30675. 10.1038/srep30675
33. Fu LM, Li JT, Wu WS: Randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for neck pain: systematic review and
meta-analysis. J Altern Complement Med. 2009, 15:133-45. 10.1089/acm.2008.0135
34. Liang F, Cooper EL, Wang H, Jing X, Quispe-Cabanillas JG, Kondo T: Acupuncture and immunity. Evid Based
Complement Alternat Med. 2015, 2015:260620. 10.1155/2015/260620
35. Ding SS, Hong SH, Wang C, Guo Y, Wang ZK, Xu Y: Acupuncture modulates the neuro-endocrine-immune
network. QJM. 2014, 107:341-5. 10.1093/qjmed/hct196
36. Roberts A, Harris K, Outen B, et al.: Osteopathic manipulative medicine: a brief review of the hands-on
treatment approaches and their therapeutic uses. Medicines (Basel). 2022, 9:33. 10.3390/medicines9050033
37. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS: Evidence based medicine: what it is and
what it isn't. BMJ. 1996, 312:71-2. 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
38. Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E: Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best
Practice. 4th Ed. Lippincott Williams Wilkins, Pennsylvania; 2018.
39. Grossman J, Mackenzie FJ: The randomized controlled trial: gold standard, or merely standard? . Perspect
Biol Med. 2005, 48:516-34. 10.1353/pbm.2005.0092
40. Mulder R, Singh AB, Hamilton A, et al.: The limitations of using randomised controlled trials as a basis for
developing treatment guidelines. Evid Based Ment Health. 2018, 21:4-6. 10.1136/eb-2017-102701
41. Deaton A, Cartwright N: Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med.
2018, 210:2-21. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005
42. Daramola OO, Rhee JS: Rating evidence in medical literature . Virtual Mentor. 2011, 13:46-51.
10.1001/virtualmentor.2011.13.1.pfor2-1101
43. Smith GC, Pell JP: Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge:
systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003, 327:1459-61. 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459
44. Kumah EA, McSherry R, Bettany-Saltikov J, van Schaik P: Evidence-informed practice: simplifying and
applying the concept for nursing students and academics. Br J Nurs. 2022, 31:322-30.
10.12968/bjon.2022.31.6.322
45. Research & subject guides: Evidence-based medicine: Levels of evidence . (2011). Accessed: August 20, 2023:
https://guides.library.stonybrook.edu/evidence-based-medicine/levels_of_evidence.
46. Bakris G, Dickholtz M Sr, Meyer PM, et al.: Atlas vertebra realignment and achievement of arterial pressure
goal in hypertensive patients: a pilot study. J Hum Hypertens. 2007, 21:347-52. 10.1038/sj.jhh.1002133
47. Holt K, Beck R, Sexton S, Taylor HH: Reflex effects of a spinal adjustment on blood pressure . Chiropr J Aust.
2010, 40:95-9.
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 27 of 39
48. Chung J, Brown J, Busa J: Resolution of hypertension following reduction of upper cervical vertebral
subluxation: a case study. J Upper Cervical Chiropr Res. 2014, 1-6.
49. Dimmick KR, Young MF, Newell D: Chiropractic manipulation affects the difference between arterial systolic
blood pressures on the left and right in normotensive subjects. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006, 29:46-50.
10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.11.006
50. Galindez-Ibarbengoetxea X, Setuain I, Andersen LL, Ramírez-Velez R, González-Izal M, Jauregi A, Izquierdo
M: Effects of cervical high-velocity low-amplitude techniques on range of motion, strength performance,
and cardiovascular outcomes: a review. J Altern Complement Med. 2017, 23:667-75. 10.1089/acm.2017.0002
51. Gera C, Malik M, Kaur J, Saini M: A systematic review and meta-analysis on effect of spinal mobilization and
manipulation on cardiovascular responses. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2020, 40:75-87.
10.1142/S1013702520500122
52. Hannah JS: Changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure for a hypotensive patient receiving upper
cervical specific: a case report. Chiropr J Aust. 2009, 39:118-21.
53. Kessinger R, Qualls T, Hart J, Dallies H, Anderson M, Wayland J, Bradshaw L: Pulse pressure findings
following upper cervical care: a practice-based observational study. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2019, 63:51-8.
54. Kessinger KC, Moe C: Improvement in chronic hypertension following a single upper cervical adjustment: a
case report. J Upper Cervical Chiropr Res. 2015, 1-5.
55. Kingston L, Claydon L, Tumilty S: The effects of spinal mobilizations on the sympathetic nervous system: a
systematic review. Man Ther. 2014, 19:281-7. 10.1016/j.math.2014.04.004
56. Knutson GA: Significant changes in systolic blood pressure post vectored upper cervical adjustment vs
resting control groups: a possible effect of the cervicosympathetic and/or pressor reflex. J Manipulative
Physiol Ther. 2001, 24:101-9. 10.1067/mmt.2001.112564
57. Lynch S, Boone WR: Somatovisceral responses to chiropractic adjustments. J Vert Sublux Res. 2009, 1-5.
58. Mangum K, Partna L, Vavrek D: Spinal manipulation for the treatment of hypertension: a systematic
qualitative literature review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2012, 35:235-43. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2012.01.005
59. McMasters KL, Wang J, York J, Hart J, Neely C, Delain RJ: Blood pressure changes in African American
patients receiving chiropractic care in a teaching clinic: a preliminary study. J Chiropr Med. 2013, 12:55-9.
10.1016/j.jcm.2013.06.002
60. Watanabe N, Polus B: A single mechanical impulse to the neck: does it influence autonomic regulation of
cardiovascular function?. Chiropr J Aust. 2007, 37:42-8.
61. Prater-Manor S, Clifton E, York A: Resolution of anxiety & hypertension in a 60-year-old male following
subluxation based chiropractic care: a case study & review of the literature. Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2015, 146-
53.
62. Qualls T, Lester C: Resolution of atrial fibrillation & hypertension in a patient undergoing upper-cervical
chiropractic care. J Upper Cervical Chiropr Res. 2012, 9-15.
63. Rodrigues PT, Corrêa LA, Reis FJ, Meziat-Filho NA, Silva BM, Nogueira LA: One session of spinal
manipulation improves the cardiac autonomic control in patients with musculoskeletal pain: a randomized
placebo-controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021, 46:915-22. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003962
64. Sullivan SG, Paolacci S, Kiani AK, Bertelli M: Chiropractic care for hypertension: review of the literature and
study of biological and genetic bases. Acta Biomed. 2020, 91:e2020017. 10.23750/abm.v91i13-S.10524
65. Torns SR: Reduction in arterial blood pressure following adjustment of atlas to correct vertebral
subluxation: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. J Upper Cervical Chiropr Res. 2014, 54-60.
66. Torns SR: Atlas vertebra realignment and arterial blood pressure regulation in 42 subjects . J Upper Cervical
Chiropr Res. 2012, 2:40-5.
67. Van Dyke V Russell D Alcantara J: Resolution of hypertension in a 72-year-old male following subluxation
based chiropractic care: a case report & selective review of the literature. Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2015, 172-7.
68. Vansen Z: Reduction of blood pressure in a patient receiving chiropractic care: a case study & review of
literature. Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2017, 15-33.
69. Wang Y, Xu M, Shi Y: Efficacy of spinal chiropractic manipulative therapy for adjusting the relationship
between cervical facet joints to treat headache caused by acute mountain sickness. J Int Med Res. 2020,
48:300060519898005. 10.1177/0300060519898005
70. Welch A, Boone R: Sympathetic and parasympathetic responses to specific diversified adjustments to
chiropractic vertebral subluxations of the cervical and thoracic spine. J Chiropr Med. 2008, 7:86-93.
10.1016/j.jcm.2008.04.001
71. Wells C, Williams J: Upper cervical chiropractic management of an adult with ankylosing spondylitis: a case
report. J Upper Cervical Chiropr Res. 2011, 25-30.
72. Whedon E: Upper cervical specific chiropractic management of a patient with hypertension: a case report
and selective review of the literature. J Upper Cervical Chiropr Res. 2013, 1-13.
73. Win NN, Jorgensen AM, Chen YS, Haneline MT: Effects of upper and lower cervical spinal manipulative
therapy on blood pressure and heart rate variability in volunteers and patients with neck pain: a
randomized controlled, cross-over, preliminary study. J Chiropr Med. 2015, 14:1-9.
10.1016/j.jcm.2014.12.005
74. Yung E, Oh C, Wong M, Grimes JK, Barton EM, Ali MI, Breakey A: Non-thrust cervical manipulations reduce
short-term pain and decrease systolic blood pressure during intervention in mechanical neck pain: a
randomized clinical trial. J Man Manip Ther. 2020, 28:82-93. 10.1080/10669817.2019.1646985
75. Martin S, Rauch M: Reduction in blood pressure following chiropractic care in a 52-year-old female: a case
study & review of literature. Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2022, 65-70.
76. Arick CT: Chiropractic management of a patient with chronic fatigue: a case report . J Chiropr Med. 2016,
15:314-20. 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.08.006
77. Hughes FP: Reduction of cortisol levels and perceived anxiety in a patient undergoing chiropractic
management for neck pain and headache: a case report and review of the literature. J Contemp Chiropr.
2020, 3:14-20.
78. Jensen AM: A mind-body approach for precompetitive anxiety in power-lifters: 2 case studies . J Chiropr
Med. 2010, 9:184-92. 10.1016/j.jcm.2010.08.003
79. Kovanur Sampath K, Mani R, Katare R, Neale J, Cotter J, Tumilty S: Thoracic spinal manipulation effect on
neuroendocrine response in people with achilles tendinopathy: a randomized crossover trial. J Manipulative
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 28 of 39
Physiol Ther. 2021, 44:420-31. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2021.06.001
80. Padayachy K, Vawda HM, Junaid S, McCarthy PW: The immediate effect of low back manipulation on serum
cortisol levels in adult males with mechanical low back pain. Clin Chiropr. 2010, 13:246-52.
10.1016/j.clch.2010.05.002
81. Plaza-Manzano G, Molina-Ortega F, Lomas-Vega R, Martínez-Amat A, Achalandabaso A, Hita-Contreras F:
Changes in biochemical markers of pain perception and stress response after spinal manipulation . J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther. 2014, 44:231-9. 10.2519/jospt.2014.4996
82. Sampath KK, Botnmark E, Mani R, Cotter JD, Katare R, Munasinghe PE, Tumilty S: Neuroendocrine response
following a thoracic spinal manipulation in healthy men. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017, 47:617-27.
10.2519/jospt.2017.7348
83. Valera-Calero A, Lluch Girbés E, Gallego-Izquierdo T, Malfliet A, Pecos-Martín D: Endocrine response after
cervical manipulation and mobilization in people with chronic mechanical neck pain: a randomized
controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2019, 55:792-805. 10.23736/S1973-9087.19.05475-3
84. Lutke Schipholt IJ, Coppieters MW, Meijer OG, Tompra N, de Vries RB, Scholten-Peeters GG: Effects of joint
and nerve mobilisation on neuroimmune responses in animals and humans with neuromusculoskeletal
conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Rep. 2021, 6:e927. 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000927
85. McCoy M, Kent C, Candelaria-Perez SM, Stiles A, Kwon C, Long C, Mills B: A scoping review of chiropractic,
vertebral subluxation and immune function with implications for development of a protocol for
measurement of immune biomarkers in chiropractic research & the development of related policy. Ann Vert
Sublux Res. 2020, 63-74.
86. Kovanur-Sampath K, Mani R, Cotter J, Gisselman AS, Tumilty S: Changes in biochemical markers following
spinal manipulation-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017, 29:120-31.
10.1016/j.msksp.2017.04.004
87. Duarte FC, Funabashi M, Starmer D, Partata WA, West DW, Kumbhare DA, Injeyan S: Effects of distinct force
magnitude of spinal manipulative therapy on blood biomarkers of inflammation: a proof of principle study
in healthy young adults. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2022, 45:20-32. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2022.03.012
88. Gevers-Montoro C, Romero-Santiago M, Losapio L, et al.: Presence of tumor necrosis factor-alpha in urine
samples of patients with chronic low back pain undergoing chiropractic care: preliminary findings from a
prospective cohort study. Front Integr Neurosci. 2022, 16:879083. 10.3389/fnint.2022.879083
89. Ormos G, Mehrishi JN, Bakács T: Reduction in high blood tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels after
manipulative therapy in 2 cervicogenic headache patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009, 32:586-91.
10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.08.006
90. Roy RA, Boucher JP, Comtois AS: Inflammatory response following a short-term course of chiropractic
treatment in subjects with and without chronic low back pain. J Chiropr Med. 2010, 9:107-14.
10.1016/j.jcm.2010.06.002
91. Teodorczyk-Injeyan JA, Injeyan HS, McGregor M, Harris GM, Ruegg R: Enhancement of in vitro interleukin-
2 production in normal subjects following a single spinal manipulative treatment. Chiropr Osteopat. 2008,
16:5. 10.1186/1746-1340-16-5
92. Teodorczyk-Injeyan JA, Injeyan HS, Ruegg R: Spinal manipulative therapy reduces inflammatory cytokines
but not substance P production in normal subjects. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006, 29:14-21.
10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.10.002
93. Teodorczyk-Injeyan JA, McGregor M, Ruegg R, Injeyan HS: Interleukin 2-regulated in vitro antibody
production following a single spinal manipulative treatment in normal subjects. Chiropr Osteopat. 2010,
18:26. 10.1186/1746-1340-18-26
94. Teodorczyk-Injeyan JA, McGregor M, Triano JJ, Injeyan SH: Elevated production of nociceptive CC
chemokines and sE-selectin in patients with low back pain and the effects of spinal manipulation: a
nonrandomized clinical trial. Clin J Pain. 2018, 34:68-75. 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000507
95. Teodorczyk-Injeyan JA, Triano JJ, Gringmuth R, DeGraauw C, Chow A, Injeyan HS: Effects of spinal
manipulative therapy on inflammatory mediators in patients with non-specific low back pain: a non-
randomized controlled clinical trial . Chiropr Man Therap. 2021, 29:3. 10.1186/s12998-020-00357-y
96. Zhang L, Yao CH: The physiological role of tumor necrosis factor in human immunity and its potential
implications in spinal manipulative therapy: a narrative literature review. J Chiropr Med. 2016, 15:190-6.
10.1016/j.jcm.2016.04.016
97. Amoroso Borges BL, Bortolazzo GL, Neto HP: Effects of spinal manipulation and myofascial techniques on
heart rate variability: a systematic review. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2018, 22:203-8. 10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.09.025
98. Budgell B, Hirano F: Innocuous mechanical stimulation of the neck and alterations in heart-rate variability
in healthy young adults. Auton Neurosci. 2001, 91:96-9. 10.1016/S1566-0702(01)00306-X
99. Budgell B, Polus B: The effects of thoracic manipulation on heart rate variability: a controlled crossover
trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006, 29:603-10. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.08.011
100. Budgell B, Igarashi Y: Response of arrhythmia to spinal manipulation: monitoring by ECG with analysis of
heart-rate variability. JNMS-J Neuromusc Sys. 2001, 9:97-102.
101. da Silva AC, Marques CM de G, Marques JLB: Influence of spinal manipulation on autonomic modulation and
heart rate in patients with rotator cuff tendinopathy. J Chiropr Med. 2018, 17:82-9.
10.1016/j.jcm.2017.12.003
102. Fedorchuk C, Lightstone DF, McCoy M, Harrison DE: Increased telomere length and improvements in
dysautonomia, quality of life, and neck and back pain following correction of sagittal cervical alignment
using Chiropractic BioPhysics® technique: a case study. J Mol Genet Med. 2017, 11:1000269.
103. Fonke V, Fonke J, Alcantera J: Improvement in heart rate variability, dysautonomia & quality of life in a
patient with Sjögren’s syndrome undergoing chiropractic care: a case report & selective review of the
literature. Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2018, 108-13.
104. Haas A, Russell D: Sustained improvement of heart rate variability in patients undergoing a program of
chiropractic care: a retrospective case series. Chiropr J Aust. 2018, 45:338-58.
105. Hart J: Optimal level of heart rate variability for spinal adjustment: a case report . J Contemp Chiropr. 2019,
2:103-8.
106. Hartenburg M: Heart rate variability as an objective outcome measure for subluxation based chiropractic
care for athletes. Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2018, 89-94.
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 29 of 39
107. Hodgson N, Fox M: Improvement in signs and symptoms of ADHD, migraines and functional outcomes
while receiving subluxation based torque release chiropractic and cranial nerve auriculotherapy. Ann Vert
Sublux Res. 2014, 184-99.
108. Hodgson N, Vaden C: Improvement in signs and symptoms of ADHD and functional outcomes in four
children receiving torque release chiropractic: a case series. Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2014, 55-79.
109. Kessinger RC, Anderson MF, Adlington JW: Improvement in pattern analysis, heart rate variability &
symptoms following upper cervical chiropractic care. J Upper Cervical Chiropr Res. 2013, 32-42.
110. Miyoshi H, Saeki N, Nakamura R, Kurita S, Kawamoto M: A case of coronary artery spasm caused by
manipulation of the neck: heart rate variability analysis. J Anesth. 2012, 26:905-9. 10.1007/s00540-012-
1442-2
111. Rogan S, Taeymans J, Clarys P, Clijsen R, Tal-Akabi A: Feasibility and effectiveness of thoracic spine
mobilization on sympathetic/parasympathetic balance in a healthy population - a randomized controlled
double-blinded pilot study. Arch Physiother. 2019, 9:15. 10.1186/s40945-019-0067-2
112. Roy RA, Boucher JP, Comtois AS: Heart rate variability modulation after manipulation in pain-free patients
vs patients in pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009, 32:277-86. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.03.003
113. Steinberg B, Clodgo-Gordon K, Russell D: Reduction in anxiety & dysautonomia in five adult patients
undergoing chiropractic care for vertebral subluxation: a case series & review of the literature. Ann Vert
Sublux Res. 2020, 50-8.
114. Swensen D: Heart rate variability and spinal manipulation: a review of the literature . J Acad Chiropr Orthop.
2011, 8:4-21.
115. Tal A, Taeymans J, Karstens S, Clijsen R, Clarys P, Rogan S: Acute effects on TH4 thoracic spine mobilisation
techniques on the sympathetic nervous system - a cross-over feasibility study [Article in German]. Praxis
(Bern 1994). 2018, 107:1139-46. 10.1024/1661-8157/a003089
116. Valenzuela PL, Pancorbo S, Lucia A, Germain F: Spinal manipulative therapy effects in autonomic regulation
and exercise performance in recreational healthy athletes: a randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa
1976). 2019, 44:609-14. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002908
117. Wirth B, Gassner A, de Bruin ED, Axén I, Swanenburg J, Humphreys BK, Schweinhardt P:
Neurophysiological effects of high velocity and low amplitude spinal manipulation in symptomatic and
asymptomatic humans: a systematic literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019, 44:E914-26.
10.1097/BRS.0000000000003013
118. Younes M, Nowakowski K, Didier-Laurent B, Gombert M, Cottin F: Effect of spinal manipulative treatment
on cardiovascular autonomic control in patients with acute low back pain . Chiropr Man Therap. 2017, 25:33.
10.1186/s12998-017-0167-6
119. Zhang J, Dean D, Nosco D, Strathopulos D, Floros M: Effect of chiropractic care on heart rate variability and
pain in a multisite clinical study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006, 29:267-74. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.03.010
120. Janke OJ, Russell D: Improvement in vagal function in a post breast cancer patient receiving chiropractic
care: a case study. J Med Cases. 2019, 10:171-8.
121. Knowles D, Knowles R, Kotur D: Improvement in heart rate variability in 46 patients undergoing
chiropractic with network spinal analysis: a retrospective analysis of outcomes . Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2017,
232-7.
122. Alcantara J, Van Roo L, Oman R: Chiropractic care of a pediatric patient with asthma, allergies, chronic
colds & vertebral subluxation. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2009, 3:1-7.
123. Basso E, Potrzebowski S: Resolution of juvenile idiopathic arthritis & improved immune function in a 16
year old undergoing chiropractic care: a case study. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2014, 65-9.
124. Boone W, Oswald P, Holt K, Beck R, Singh K, Ashton A: Long term assessment of blood indices and immune
panel profiling of subjects receiving chiropractic care: a pilot study. J Vert Sublux Res. 2006, 1-11.
125. Boone W, Oswald P, Holt K, Beck R, Singh K, Ashton A: Physical, physiological, and immune status changes,
coupled with self-perceptions of health and quality of life, in subjects receiving chiropractic care: a pilot
study. J Vert Sublux Res. 2006, 1-6.
126. Cramer G, Budgell B, Henderson C, Khalsa P, Pickar J: Basic science research related to chiropractic spinal
adjusting: the state of the art and recommendations revisited. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006, 29:726-61.
10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.09.003
127. Chow N, Hogg-Johnson S, Mior S, et al.: Assessment of studies evaluating spinal manipulative therapy and
infectious disease and immune system outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2021, 4:e215493.
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5493
128. Chu EC, Bellin D: Remission of myasthenia gravis following cervical adjustment . AME Case Rep. 2019, 3:9.
10.21037/acr.2019.04.04
129. Cohn A: Chiropractic and the neuroimmune connection. J Vert Sublux Res. 2008, 1-5.
130. Colombi A, Testa M: The effects induced by spinal manipulative therapy on the immune and endocrine
systems. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019, 55:1-12. 10.3390/medicina55080448
131. Cuthbert SC, Rosner AL: Applied kinesiology management of candidiasis and chronic ear infections: a case
history. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2010, 122:9.
132. Davison S, Parkin-Smith GF: The possible effect of upper cervical chiropractic manipulation on short-term
lymphocytic response: A pilot study. Eur J Chiropr. 2003, 51:19-28.
133. Deignan D, Da Campo T: Resolution of immunodeficiency in a child undergoing chiropractic care for the
management of vertebral subluxations: a case study & review of the literature. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health.
2018, 68-76.
134. Gergen D, Okins NC: Resolution of fever in an 11-year old male following chiropractic adjustments to
reduce vertebral subluxation: a case report & review of literature. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2016, 127-
30.
135. Haavik H, Niazi IK, Kumari N, Amjad I, Duehr J, Holt K: The potential mechanisms of high-velocity, low-
amplitude, controlled vertebral thrusts on neuroimmune function: a narrative review. Medicina (Kaunas).
2021, 57:536. 10.3390/medicina57060536
136. Marino FM, Butt A: Chiropractic care of a pediatric patient suffering recurrent otitis media and respiratory
syncytial virus: a retrospective case report. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2010, 183-6.
137. McCoy M, Kent C, Senzon S, Ebrall P: A critical evaluation of the World Federation of Chiropractic’s fatally
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 30 of 39
flawed review of immunity & chiropractic. Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2020, 59-62.
138. McCoy M, Kent C, Stiles A, et al.: Immunity & chiropractic clinical practice . Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2021, 24-
35.
139. Miller AL: The etiologies, pathophysiology, and alternative/complementary treatment of asthma . Altern
Med Rev. 2001, 6:20-47.
140. Pilsner R, Richardson M: Improvements in hearing, speech, development, and behavior following
chiropractic in a 4 year old male. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2011, 14-22.
141. Schalow PR, Kimball KA, Schurger FT, et al.: Secretory immunoglobulin A and upper cervical chiropractic: a
preliminary prospective, multicenter, observational study. J Chiropr Med. 2021, 20:121-7.
10.1016/j.jcm.2021.10.003
142. Stone-Mccoy P, Taylor C: Resolution of asthma and other functional disorders following chiropractic care to
reduce vertebral subluxations in a nine year old male: a case report. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2018, 26-
33.
143. Tsuji Y: Resolution of psoriasis secondary to chiropractic using the Toftness system technique: a case
report. Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2011, 15-22.
144. Warhurst C, Warhurst R, Gabai A: Improvement in cystic fibrosis in a child undergoing subluxation-based
chiropractic care: a case study. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2010, 4:172-80.
145. Whittle-Davis H, Czegus K: Chiropractic care of a pediatric patient with asthma: a case report . J Pediatr
Matern Fam Health. 2011, 77-81.
146. Alcantara J, Anderson R: Chiropractic care of a pediatric patient with symptoms associated with
gastroesophageal reflux disease, fuss-cry-irritability with sleep disorder syndrome and irritable infant
syndrome of musculoskeletal origin. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2008, 52:248-55.
147. Boman C, Allen J: Resolution of severe gastroesophageal reflux, chronic constipation, sleep disturbance &
developmental delays following chiropractic in an infant with birth trauma: a case report & review of the
literature. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2020, 18-25.
148. Browning M, Miller J: Comparison of the short-term effects of chiropractic spinal manipulation and
occipito-sacral decompression in the treatment of infant colic: a single-blinded, randomised, comparison
trial. Clin Chiropr. 2008, 11:122-9. 10.1016/j.clch.2008.10.003
149. Bryant B, Alcantara J: Resolution of chronic gastroesophageal reflux and constipation in an infant following
chiropractic to reduce vertebral subluxation: a case report of the literature . J Pediatr Matern Fam Health.
2019, 129-33.
150. Cutler MJ, Holland BS, Stupski BA, Gamber RG, Smith ML: Cranial manipulation can alter sleep latency and
sympathetic nerve activity in humans: a pilot study. J Altern Complement Med. 2005, 11:103-8.
10.1089/acm.2005.11.103
151. Deschenes BK, Zafereo J: Immediate and lasting effects of a thoracic spine manipulation in a patient with
signs of cervical radiculopathy and upper extremity hyperalgesia: a case report. Physiother Theory Pract.
2017, 33:82-8. 10.1080/09593985.2016.1247307
152. Alcantara J, Desilets J, Oman RE: Chiropractic care of a 3-year-old male with sleep disordered breathing
syndrome. Chiropr J Aust. 2008, 38:69-74.
153. Dickholtz M, White E: Improvement in quality life, sleep & attention in a patient with attention deficit
disorder undergoing upper cervical chiropractic care to reduce vertebral subluxation: a case report. J Upper
Cervical Chiropr Res. 2012, 71-6.
154. Feltz K, Stark D: Improvements following chiropractic in an infant with excessive crying, screaming, feeding
difficulties sleep disturbances: a case report & selective review of literature . J Pediatr Matern Fam Health.
2021, 11-18.
155. Goodsell L, Schneider J: Improvement in sleep and quality of life in a child with cerebral palsy undergoing
chiropractic care. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2010, 130-5.
156. Haas A: Resolution of sleep and anxiety disorder following reduction of vertebral subluxations: a case study
& review of the literature. Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2022, 101-13.
157. Hains G, Hains F: A combined ischemic compression and spinal manipulation in the treatment of
fibromyalgia: a preliminary estimate of dose and efficacy. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000, 23:225-30.
10.1067/mmt.2000.106102
158. Hanson D, Rupp A: Resolution of sensory processing disorder, sleep challenges, and speech delay in a child
following chiropractic care to reduce vertebral subluxation: a case study & selective review of the literature.
J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2018, 123-37.
159. Herring RD, Marcell JL: Reduction in autistic behavior & improvement language development, sleeping,
constipation, infections in a 17-year-old male following chiropractic care: a case study. J Pediatr Matern
Fam Health. 2022, 114-18.
160. Kingston J, Raggio C, Spencer K, Stalaker K, Tuchin PJ: A review of the literature on chiropractic and
insomnia. J Chiropr Med. 2010, 9:121-6. 10.1016/j.jcm.2010.03.003
161. Lanjopoulos C, Lanjopoulos D: Resolution of chronic otitis media, difficulty sleeping, and tactile
hypersensitivity in a child undergoing subluxation-based chiropractic care. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health.
2012, 3:81-4.
162. MacMillan H: Effect of chiropractic care in sleeping patterns of a nine-month-old infant with birth induced
vertebral subluxation. J Clin Chiropr Pediatr. 2006, 7:466-8.
163. Miller J, Klemsdal M: Sleep like a baby: can chiropractic care improve infants’ sleep? . Foc Alt Complem Ther.
2007, 12:37. 10.1111/j.2042-7166.2007.tb05902.x
164. Miller JE, Hanson HA, Hiew M, Lo Tiap Kwong DS, Mok Z, Tee YH: Maternal report of outcomes of
chiropractic care for infants. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2019, 42:167-76. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2018.10.005
165. Miller JE, Phillips HL: Long-term effects of infant colic: a survey comparison of chiropractic treatment and
nontreatment groups. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009, 32:635-8. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.08.017
166. Moustafa IM, Diab AA: The addition of upper cervical manipulative therapy in the treatment of patients
with fibromyalgia: a randomized controlled trial. Rheumatol Int. 2015, 35:1163-74. 10.1007/s00296-015-
3248-7
167. Murphy J, Vavrek D: The benefits of chiropractic care on the infant with idiopathic central sleep apnea: a
case report. J Clin Chiropr Pediatr. 2013, 14:1110-14.
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 31 of 39
168. Alcantara J, Ohm J: Improvement in quality of life for six pregnant patients undergoing chiropractic care:
the promise of PROMIS. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2013, 11-14.
169. Parisi A, Bako S: Resolution of gastroesophageal reflux disease, difficulties, & sleep disturbances in an
infant chiropractic: a case report & review of literature. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2020, 46-9.
170. Porter M, Alcantara J: Resolution of sleep disorder in an infant undergoing chiropractic care: case report &
review of the literature. J Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2019, 87-90.
171. Shtulman I, Collins C, Alcantara J: Resolution of adenotonsilar hypertrophy, associated sleep disordered
breathing & avoidance of surgery following chiropractic care: a case study & review of the literature. J
Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2019, 95-9.
172. Skarica B: Effectiveness of manual treatment on pregnancy symptoms: usefulness of manual treatment in
treating pregnancy symptoms. Med Arch. 2018, 72:131-5. 10.5455/medarh.2018.72.131-135
173. Vaden CD, Pratt R: Reduction in depression, insomnia, pre-menstrual syndrome & dysautonomia in a
patient undergoing subluxation-based chiropractic care using torque release technique. Ann Vert Sublux
Res. 2016, 125-32.
174. Valente A: Improvement in a child with cerebral palsy undergoing subluxation based chiropractic care . J
Pediatr Matern Fam Health. 2009, 1-4.
175. Lascurain-Aguirrebeña I, Newham D, Critchley DJ: Mechanism of action of spinal mobilizations: a
systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016, 41:159-72. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001151
176. Molina-Ortega F, Lomas-Vega R, Hita-Contreras F, Plaza Manzano G, Achalandabaso A, Ramos-Morcillo AJ,
Martínez-Amat A: Immediate effects of spinal manipulation on nitric oxide, substance P and pain
perception. Man Ther. 2014, 19:411-17. 10.1016/j.math.2014.02.007
177. Tonelli Enrico V, Schneider M, Haas M, et al.: The association of biomarkers with pain and function in acute
and subacute low back pain: a secondary analysis of an RCT. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022, 23:1059.
10.1186/s12891-022-06027-9
178. Yang JR, Zhang JP, Yu JC, Han JX: Lumbar disc herniation treated with qi pathway intervention and spinal
adjustment: a randomized controlled trial [Article in Chinese]. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2013, 33:289-93.
179. Boone WDG: A proposed vertebral subluxation model reflecting traditional concepts and recent advances in
health and science. J Vert Sublux Res. 1996, 1:1-12.
180. Senzon SA: The chiropractic vertebral subluxation Part 10: integrative and critical literature from 1996 and
1997. J Chiropr Humanit. 2018, 25:146-68. 10.1016/j.echu.2018.10.008
181. Kent C: Proposed neurobiological processes associated with models of vertebral subluxation:
dysafferentation, dyskinesia, dysponesis, dysautonomia, neuroplasticity and ephaptic transmission. Arch
Neurol Neurosci. 2019, 3:10.33552/ann.2019.03.000555
182. Holt KR, Russell D, Cooperstein R, Young M, Sherson M, Haavik H: Interexaminer reliability of a
multidimensional battery of tests used to assess for vertebral subluxations . Chiropr J Aust. 2018, 46:100-17.
183. Kent CDC, Costello K: Prevalence of abnormal findings in a cohort of 737 patients referred for MRI
examination by doctors of chiropractic and potential neurological consequences associated with vertebral
subluxation. Arch Neurol Neurosci. 2021, 1:53-61. 10.33552/ANN.2019.03.000555
184. Niazi IK, Navid MS, Merkle C, et al.: A randomized controlled trial comparing different sites of high-velocity
low amplitude thrust on sensorimotor integration parameters. Sci Rep. 2024, 14:1159. 10.1038/s41598-024-
51201-9
185. Ribes-Iñesta E: What is defined in operational definitions? The case of operant psychology . Behav Philos.
2003, 31:111-26.
186. Kent C: Vertebral subluxation: semantic pathology, epistemic trespassing, and ethics . J Philos Princ Pract
Chiropr. 2018, 2018:1-7.
187. Triano JJ, Budgell B, Bagnulo A, et al.: Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for
applying manipulation. Chiropr Man Therap. 2013, 21:36. 10.1186/2045-709X-21-36
188. Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Troyanovich SJ, Harmon S: A normal spinal position: it's time to accept the
evidence. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000, 23:623-44. 10.1067/mmt.2000.110941
189. Morningstar MW, Pettibon BR, Schlappi H, Schlappi M, Ireland TV: Reflex control of the spine and posture:
a review of the literature from a chiropractic perspective. Chiropr Osteopat. 2005, 13:16. 10.1186/1746-
1340-13-16
190. Observation-based posture assessment: review of current practice and recommendations for improvement .
(2014). Accessed: November 21, 2021: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268800562_Observation-
based_posture_assessment_review_of_current_practice_an....
191. Smith DL, Dainoff MJ, Smith JP: The effect of chiropractic adjustments on movement time: a pilot study
using Fitts Law. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006, 29:257-66. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.03.009
192. Passmore SR, Burke JR, Good C, Lyons JL, Dunn AS: Spinal manipulation impacts cervical spine movement
and fitts' task performance: a single-blind randomized before-after trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010,
33:189-92. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.01.007
193. Fukuda T: The stepping test: two phases of the labyrinthine reflex . Acta Otolaryngol. 1959, 50:95-108.
10.3109/00016485909129172
194. Nyberg RE, Russell Smith A Jr: The science of spinal motion palpation: a review and update with
implications for assessment and intervention. J Man Manip Ther. 2013, 21:160-7.
10.1179/2042618613Y.0000000029
195. Kent C: Surface electromyography in the assessment of changes in paraspinal muscle activity associated
with vertebral subluxation. J Vert Sublux Res. 1997, 1:15-24.
196. Kent C: Heart rate variability to assess the changes in autonomic nervous system function associated with
vertebral subluxation. Res Rev Neurosci. 2017, 1:14-21.
197. Knutson GA: Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: a review and recommendation for clinical
decision-making. Part I, anatomic leg-length inequality: prevalence, magnitude, effects and clinical
significance. Chiropr Osteopat. 2005, 13:11. 10.1186/1746-1340-13-11
198. Knutson GA: Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: a review and recommendation for clinical
decision-making. Part II. The functional or unloaded leg-length asymmetry . Chiropr Osteopat. 2005, 13:12.
10.1186/1746-1340-13-12
199. Holt KR, Russell DG, Hoffmann NJ, Bruce BI, Bushell PM, Taylor HH: Interexaminer reliability of a leg length
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 32 of 39
analysis procedure among novice and experienced practitioners. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009, 32:216-
22. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.02.009
200. Smith J, Bolton PS: What are the clinical criteria justifying spinal manipulative therapy for neck pain? - a
systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Pain Med. 2013, 14:460-8. 10.1111/pme.12041
201. Gevers-Montoro C, Provencher B, Descarreaux M, Ortega de Mues A, Piché M: Neurophysiological
mechanisms of chiropractic spinal manipulation for spine pain. Eur J Pain. 2021, 25:1429-48.
10.1002/ejp.1773
202. Haavik H, Kumari N, Holt K, et al.: The contemporary model of vertebral column joint dysfunction and
impact of high-velocity, low-amplitude controlled vertebral thrusts on neuromuscular function. Eur J Appl
Physiol. 2021, 121:2675-720. 10.1007/s00421-021-04727-z
203. Pickar JG: Neurophysiological effects of spinal manipulation . Spine J. 2002, 2:357-71. 10.1016/s1529-
9430(02)00400-x
204. Taylor HH, Holt K, Murphy B: Exploring the neuromodulatory effects of the vertebral subluxation and
chiropractic care. Chiropr J Aust. 2010, 40:37-44.
205. Joyner MJ, Limberg JK: Blood pressure regulation: every adaptation is an integration? . Eur J Appl Physiol.
2014, 114:445-50. 10.1007/s00421-013-2636-5
206. George KP, Fadel PJ, Taylor NA: Thematic reviews. Series III: blood pressure regulation outside the comfort
zone. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014, 114:443-4. 10.1007/s00421-013-2796-3
207. Raven PB, Chapleau MW: Blood pressure regulation XI: overview and future research directions . Eur J Appl
Physiol. 2014, 114:579-86. 10.1007/s00421-014-2823-z
208. Hall JE, Granger JP, do Carmo JM, et al.: Hypertension: physiology and pathophysiology . Compr Physiol.
2012, 2:2393-442. 10.1002/cphy.c110058
209. Rodriguez-Iturbe B, Pons H, Johnson RJ: Role of the immune system in hypertension . Physiol Rev. 2017,
97:1127-64. 10.1152/physrev.00031.2016
210. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, et al.: Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and
death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016, 387:957-67. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01225-8
211. Ward J, Coats J, Tyer K, Weigand S, Williams G: Immediate effects of anterior upper thoracic spine
manipulation on cardiovascular response. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2013, 36:101-10.
10.1016/j.jmpt.2013.01.003
212. Picchiottino M, Honoré M, Leboeuf-Yde C, Gagey O, Cottin F, Hallman DM: The effect of a single spinal
manipulation on cardiovascular autonomic activity and the relationship to pressure pain threshold: a
randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled trial. Chiropr Man Therap. 2020, 28:7. 10.1186/s12998-019-0293-4
213. Goertz CH, Grimm RH, Svendsen K, Grandits G: Treatment of hypertension with alternative therapies
(THAT) study: a randomized clinical trial. J Hypertens. 2002, 20:2063-8. 10.1097/00004872-200210000-
00027
214. Plaugher G, Long CR, Alcantara J, et al.: Practice-based randomized controlled-comparison clinical trial of
chiropractic adjustments and brief massage treatment at sites of subluxation in subjects with essential
hypertension: pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002, 25:221-39. 10.1067/mmt.2002.123171
215. Ward J, Tyer K, Coats J, Williams G, Kulcak K: Immediate effects of upper thoracic spine manipulation on
hypertensive individuals. J Man Manip Ther. 2015, 23:43-50. 10.1179/1066981714Z.000000000106
216. Goertz CM, Salsbury SA, Vining RD, Long CR, Pohlman KA, Weeks WB, Lamas GA: Effect of spinal
manipulation of upper cervical vertebrae on blood pressure: results of a pilot sham-controlled trial. J
Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2016, 39:369-80. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2016.04.002
217. NUCCA Standards of Care and Practice Guidelines . (2019). Accessed: February 25, 2024:
https://nucca.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/NUCCA_StandardsOFCareAndPractice_102519.pdf.
218. Bolton PS, Budgell B: Visceral responses to spinal manipulation . J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012, 22:777-84.
10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.02.016
219. Edwards IJ, Dallas ML, Poole SL, et al.: The neurochemically diverse intermedius nucleus of the medulla as a
source of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic input to the nucleus tractus solitarii. J Neurosci. 2007, 27:8324-
33. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0638-07.2007
220. Edwards IJ, Lall VK, Paton JF, Yanagawa Y, Szabo G, Deuchars SA, Deuchars J: Neck muscle afferents
influence oromotor and cardiorespiratory brainstem neural circuits. Brain Struct Funct. 2015, 220:1421-36.
10.1007/s00429-014-0734-8
221. Neuhuber WL, Berthoud HR: Functional anatomy of the vagus system - emphasis on the somato-visceral
interface. Auton Neurosci. 2021, 236:102887. 10.1016/j.autneu.2021.102887
222. Cortelli P, Giannini G, Favoni V, Cevoli S, Pierangeli G: Nociception and autonomic nervous system . Neurol
Sci. 2013, 34 Suppl 1:S41-6. 10.1007/s10072-013-1391-z
223. Jun S, Ou X, Shi L, et al.: Circuit-specific control of blood pressure by PNMT-expressing nucleus tractus
solitarii neurons. Neurosci Bull. 2023, 39:1193-209. 10.1007/s12264-022-01008-3
224. Whitworth JA, Brown MA, Kelly JJ, Williamson PM: Mechanisms of cortisol-induced hypertension in
humans. Steroids. 1995, 60:76-80. 10.1016/0039-128x(94)00033-9
225. Blood pressure medication . (2022). Accessed: February 26, 2024:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/21811-antihypertensives.
226. Thau L, Gandhi J, Sharma S: Physiology, Cortisol. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL); 2022.
227. Jones C, Gwenin C: Cortisol level dysregulation and its prevalence-is it nature's alarm clock? . Physiol Rep.
2021, 8:e14644. 10.14814/phy2.14644
228. Whelan TL, Dishman JD, Burke J, Levine S, Sciotti V: The effect of chiropractic manipulation on salivary
cortisol levels. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002, 25:149-53. 10.1067/mmt.2002.122328
229. Russell G, Lightman S: The human stress response . Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2019, 15:525-34. 10.1038/s41574-
019-0228-0
230. Yeager MP, Pioli PA, Guyre PM: Cortisol exerts bi-phasic regulation of inflammation in humans . Dose
Response. 2011, 9:332-47. 10.2203/dose-response.10-013.Yeager
231. Busillo JM, Cidlowski JA: The five Rs of glucocorticoid action during inflammation: ready, reinforce, repress,
resolve, and restore. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2013, 24:109-19. 10.1016/j.tem.2012.11.005
232. Kiani AK, Maltese PE, Dautaj A, Paolacci S, Kurti D, Picotti PM, Bertelli M: Neurobiological basis of
chiropractic manipulative treatment of the spine in the care of major depression. Acta Biomed. 2020,
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 33 of 39
91:e2020006. 10.23750/abm.v91i13-S.10536
233. Lowrance SA, Ionadi A, McKay E, Douglas X, Johnson JD: Sympathetic nervous system contributes to
enhanced corticosterone levels following chronic stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2016, 68:163-70.
10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.02.027
234. Nees F, Löffler M, Usai K, Flor H: Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis feedback sensitivity in different states
of back pain. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2019, 101:60-6. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.10.026
235. Kageyama K, Iwasaki Y, Daimon M: Hypothalamic regulation of corticotropin-releasing factor under stress
and stress resilience. Int J Mol Sci. 2021, 22: 10.3390/ijms222212242
236. Sosa MK, Boorman DC, Keay KA: Sciatic nerve injury rebalances the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in
rats with persistent changes to their social behaviours. J Neuroendocrinol. 2022, 34:e13131.
10.1111/jne.13131
237. McCoy M, Candelaria-Perez SM, Kent C, Kwon C, Stiles A, Long C, Mills B: A scoping review of salivary tests
for immunoglobulin a, cortisol, and c-reactive protein in consideration of their use as immune biomarkers in
chiropractic research. Ann Vert Sublux Res. 2020, 103-8.
238. Oppenheim JJ: Cytokines: past, present, and future . Int J Hematol. 2001, 74:3-8. 10.1007/BF02982543
239. Salvador AF, de Lima KA, Kipnis J: Neuromodulation by the immune system: a focus on cytokines . Nat Rev
Immunol. 2021, 21:526-41. 10.1038/s41577-021-00508-z
240. Spangelo BL: Cytokines and endocrine function . Endocrinology: Basic and Clinical Principles. Conn PM,
Melmed S (ed): Humana Press, Totowa, NJ; 1997. 10:115-28. 10.1007/978-1-59259-641-6_8
241. Morán GAG, Parra-Medina R, Cardona AG, Quintero-Ronderos P, Rodríguez ÉG: Cytokines, chemokines and
growth factors. Autoimmunity: From Bench to Bedside. Anaya JM, Shoenfeld Y, Rojas-Villarraga A (ed): El
Rosario University Press, Bogota, Columbia; 2013.
242. Zheng W, Li X, Li J, et al.: Mechanical loading mitigates osteoarthritis symptoms by regulating the
inflammatory microenvironment in a mouse model. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2022, 1512:141-53.
10.1111/nyas.14760
243. Maruyama K, Nemoto E, Yamada S: Mechanical regulation of macrophage function - cyclic tensile force
inhibits NLRP3 inflammasome-dependent IL-1β secretion in murine macrophages. Inflamm Regen. 2019,
39:3. 10.1186/s41232-019-0092-2
244. Dilley JE, Bello MA, Roman N, McKinley T, Sankar U: Post-traumatic osteoarthritis: a review of pathogenic
mechanisms and novel targets for mitigation. Bone Rep. 2023, 18:101658. 10.1016/j.bonr.2023.101658
245. Biancotto A, Wank A, Perl S, et al.: Baseline levels and temporal stability of 27 multiplexed serum cytokine
concentrations in healthy subjects. PLoS One. 2013, 8:e76091. 10.1371/journal.pone.0076091
246. Heart rate variability: standards of measurement, physiological interpretation and clinical use. Task Force of
the European Society of Cardiology and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology.
Circulation. 1996, 17:354-81. 10.1161/01.CIR.93.5.1043
247. De Maria B, Dalla Vecchia LA, Porta A, La Rovere MT: Autonomic dysfunction and heart rate variability with
Holter monitoring: a diagnostic look at autonomic regulation. Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2021,
32:315-19. 10.1007/s00399-021-00780-5
248. Ernst G: Heart-rate variability - more than heart beats? . Front Public Health. 2017, 5:240.
10.3389/fpubh.2017.00240
249. Smith R, Thayer JF, Khalsa SS, Lane RD: The hierarchical basis of neurovisceral integration . Neurosci
Biobehav Rev. 2017, 75:274-96. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.02.003
250. Shaffer F, Ginsberg JP: An overview of heart rate variability metrics and norms . Front Public Health. 2017,
5:258. 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00258
251. McCraty R, Shaffer F: Heart rate variability: new perspectives on physiological mechanisms, assessment of
self-regulatory capacity, and health risk. Glob Adv Health Med. 2015, 4:46-61. 10.7453/gahmj.2014.073
252. Shaffer F, McCraty R, Zerr CL: A healthy heart is not a metronome: an integrative review of the heart's
anatomy and heart rate variability . Front Psychol. 2014, 5:1040. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01040
253. Fang SC, Wu YL, Tsai PS: Heart rate variability and risk of all-cause death and cardiovascular events in
patients with cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Biol Res Nurs. 2020, 22:45-56.
10.1177/1099800419877442
254. Pan Y, Yu Z, Yuan Y, et al.: Alteration of autonomic nervous system is associated with severity and
outcomes in patients with COVID-19 . Front Physiol. 2021, 12:630038. 10.3389/fphys.2021.630038
255. Williams DP, Koenig J, Carnevali L, Sgoifo A, Jarczok MN, Sternberg EM, Thayer JF: Heart rate variability and
inflammation: a meta-analysis of human studies. Brain Behav Immun. 2019, 80:219-26.
10.1016/j.bbi.2019.03.009
256. Düking P, Zinner C, Trabelsi K, Reed JL, Holmberg HC, Kunz P, Sperlich B: Monitoring and adapting
endurance training on the basis of heart rate variability monitored by wearable technologies: a systematic
review with meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2021, 24:1180-92. 10.1016/j.jsams.2021.04.012
257. Thayer JF, Hansen AL, Saus-Rose E, Johnsen BH: Heart rate variability, prefrontal neural function, and
cognitive performance: the neurovisceral integration perspective on self-regulation, adaptation, and health.
Ann Behav Med. 2009, 37:141-53. 10.1007/s12160-009-9101-z
258. Hernández-Vicente A, Hernando D, Santos-Lozano A, et al.: Heart rate variability and exceptional longevity .
Front Physiol. 2020, 11:566399. 10.3389/fphys.2020.566399
259. Kloter E, Barrueto K, Klein SD, Scholkmann F, Wolf U: Heart rate variability as a prognostic factor for cancer
survival - a systematic review. Front Physiol. 2018, 9:623. 10.3389/fphys.2018.00623
260. Billman GE: The LF/HF ratio does not accurately measure cardiac sympatho-vagal balance . Front Physiol.
2013, 4:26. 10.3389/fphys.2013.00026
261. Injeyan HS, Budgell BS: Mitigating bias in the measurement of heart rate variability in physiological studies
of spinal manipulation: a comparison between authentic and sham manipulation. J Manipulative Physiol
Ther. 2022, 45:104-13. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2022.03.019
262. Araujo FX, Scholl Schell M, Ferreira GE, et al.: Autonomic function and pressure pain threshold following
thoracic mobilization in asymptomatic subjects: a randomized controlled trial . J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2018,
22:313-20. 10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.09.005
263. Ernst G: Hidden signals-the history and methods of heart rate variability . Front Public Health. 2017, 5:265.
10.3389/fpubh.2017.00265
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 34 of 39
264. Nunan D, Donovan G, Jakovljevic DG, Hodges LD, Sandercock GR, Brodie DA: Validity and reliability of
short-term heart-rate variability from the Polar S810. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009, 41:243-50.
10.1249/MSS.0b013e318184a4b1
265. Elenkov I: Neuroendocrine effects on immune system . Endotext. MDText.com, Inc., South Dartmouth, MA;
2009.
266. Giles PD, Hensel KL, Pacchia CF, Smith ML: Suboccipital decompression enhances heart rate variability
indices of cardiac control in healthy subjects. J Altern Complement Med. 2013, 19:92-6.
10.1089/acm.2011.0031
267. Cuoco JA, Fennie CN, Cheriyan GK: Hypothetical link between osteopathic suboccipital decompression and
neuroimmunomodulation. J Neurol Neurosci. 2016, 7:133. 10.21767/2171-6625.1000133
268. Rusch JA, Layden BT, Dugas LR: Signalling cognition: the gut microbiota and hypothalamic-pituitary-
adrenal axis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023, 14:1130689. 10.3389/fendo.2023.1130689
269. The effect of spinal adjustment/manipulation on immunity and the immune system: a rapid review of
relevant literature. (March 19, 2020). Accessed: April 1, 2020:
https://www.wfc.org/website/images/wfc/Latest_News_and_Features/Spinal_Manipulation_Immunity_Review_2020_03_19.pdf
270. Côté P, Bussières A, Cassidy JD, et al.: A united statement of the global chiropractic research community
against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity . Chiropr Man Therap. 2020, 28:21.
10.1186/s12998-020-00312-x
271. Stochkendahl MJ, Rezai M, Torres P, Sutton D, Tuchin P, Brown R, Côté P: The chiropractic workforce: a
global review. Chiropr Man Therap. 2019, 27:36. 10.1186/s12998-019-0255-x
272. Mantis NJ, Rol N, Corthésy B: Secretory IgA's complex roles in immunity and mucosal homeostasis in the
gut. Mucosal Immunol. 2011, 4:603-11. 10.1038/mi.2011.41
273. Varadhachary A, Chatterjee D, Garza J, et al.: Salivary anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA as an accessible biomarker of
mucosal immunity against COVID-19. medRxiv. 2020, 10.1101/2020.08.07.20170258
274. Rico-González M, Clemente FM, Oliveira R, Bustamante-Hernández N, Pino-Ortega J: Part I: relationship
among training load management, salivary immunoglobulin A, and upper respiratory tract infection in team
sport: a systematic review. Healthcare (Basel). 2021, 9:10.3390/healthcare9040366
275. Drummond LR, Campos HO, Drummond FR, et al.: Acute and chronic effects of physical exercise on IgA and
IgG levels and susceptibility to upper respiratory tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Pflugers Arch. 2022, 474:1221-48. 10.1007/s00424-022-02760-1
276. Keaney LC, Kilding AE, Merien F, Dulson DK: The impact of sport related stressors on immunity and illness
risk in team-sport athletes. J Sci Med Sport. 2018, 21:1192-9. 10.1016/j.jsams.2018.05.014
277. Talaei K, Garan SA, Quintela BM, et al.: A mathematical model of the dynamics of cytokine expression and
human immune cell activation in response to the pathogen Staphylococcus aureus. Front Cell Infect
Microbiol. 2021, 11:711153. 10.3389/fcimb.2021.711153
278. Kenney MJ, Ganta CK: Autonomic nervous system and immune system interactions . Compr Physiol. 2014,
4:1177-200. 10.1002/cphy.c130051
279. Stone TW, Clanchy FI, Huang YS, Chiang NY, Darlington LG, Williams RO: An integrated cytokine and
kynurenine network as the basis of neuroimmune communication. Front Neurosci. 2022, 16:1002004.
10.3389/fnins.2022.1002004
280. Cain DW, Cidlowski JA: Immune regulation by glucocorticoids . Nat Rev Immunol. 2017, 17:233-47.
10.1038/nri.2017.1
281. Khanna NR, Gerriets V: Interferon. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island, FL; 2023.
282. Ivashkiv LB: IFNγ: signalling, epigenetics and roles in immunity, metabolism, disease and cancer
immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2018, 18:545-58. 10.1038/s41577-018-0029-z
283. Justiz-Vaillant AA, Qurie A: Interleukin. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island, FL;
2021.
284. Uciechowski P, Dempke WC: Interleukin-6: a masterplayer in the cytokine network . Oncology. 2020,
98:131-7. 10.1159/000505099
285. Papanicolaou DA, Vgontzas AN: Interleukin-6: the endocrine cytokine . J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000,
85:1331-3. 10.1210/jcem.85.3.6582
286. Zampetaki A, Zhang Z, Hu Y, Xu Q: Biomechanical stress induces IL-6 expression in smooth muscle cells via
Ras/Rac1-p38 MAPK-NF-kappaB signaling pathways. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2005, 288:H2946-54.
10.1152/ajpheart.00919.2004
287. Yabu A, Suzuki A, Hayashi K, et al.: Periostin increased by mechanical stress upregulates interleukin-6
expression in the ligamentum flavum. FASEB J. 2023, 37:e22726. 10.1096/fj.202200917RR
288. Wiegertjes R, van de Loo FA, Blaney Davidson EN: A roadmap to target interleukin-6 in osteoarthritis .
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2020, 59:2681-94. 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa248
289. Zhou YQ, Liu Z, Liu ZH, et al.: Interleukin-6: an emerging regulator of pathological pain . J
Neuroinflammation. 2016, 13:141. 10.1186/s12974-016-0607-6
290. Zheng D, Liwinski T, Elinav E: Inflammasome activation and regulation: toward a better understanding of
complex mechanisms. Cell Discov. 2020, 6:36. 10.1038/s41421-020-0167-x
291. Singhal G, Jaehne EJ, Corrigan F, Toben C, Baune BT: Inflammasomes in neuroinflammation and changes in
brain function: a focused review. Front Neurosci. 2014, 8:315. 10.3389/fnins.2014.00315
292. Matricciani L, Bin YS, Lallukka T, Kronholm E, Dumuid D, Paquet C, Olds T: Past, present, and future:
trends in sleep duration and implications for public health. Sleep Health. 2017, 3:317-23.
10.1016/j.sleh.2017.07.006
293. Matricciani L, Bin YS, Lallukka T, et al.: Rethinking the sleep-health link . Sleep Health. 2018, 4:339-48.
10.1016/j.sleh.2018.05.004
294. Vgontzas AN, Mastorakos G, Bixler EO, Kales A, Gold PW, Chrousos GP: Sleep deprivation effects on the
activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal and growth axes: potential clinical implications. Clin
Endocrinol (Oxf). 1999, 51:205-15. 10.1046/j.1365-2265.1999.00763.x
295. Meerlo P, Sgoifo A, Suchecki D: Restricted and disrupted sleep: effects on autonomic function,
neuroendocrine stress systems and stress responsivity. Sleep Med Rev. 2008, 12:197-210.
10.1016/j.smrv.2007.07.007
296. Bryant PA, Trinder J, Curtis N: Sick and tired: does sleep have a vital role in the immune system? . Nat Rev
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 35 of 39
Immunol. 2004, 4:457-67. 10.1038/nri1369
297. Smith PC, Mong JA: Neuroendocrine control of sleep . Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2019, 43:353-78.
10.1007/7854_2019_107
298. Mullington JM, Haack M, Toth M, Serrador JM, Meier-Ewert HK: Cardiovascular, inflammatory, and
metabolic consequences of sleep deprivation. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2009, 51:294-302.
10.1016/j.pcad.2008.10.003
299. Aldabal L, Bahammam AS: Metabolic, endocrine, and immune consequences of sleep deprivation . Open
Respir Med J. 2011, 5:31-43. 10.2174/1874306401105010031
300. Ip M, Mokhlesi B: Sleep and glucose intolerance/diabetes mellitus. Sleep Med Clin. 2007, 2:19-29.
10.1016/j.jsmc.2006.12.002
301. Yin J, Jin X, Shan Z, et al.: Relationship of sleep duration with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events:
a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017,
6(9):e005947. 10.1161/JAHA.117.005947
302. Yoshiike T, Utsumi T, Matsui K, et al.: Mortality associated with nonrestorative short sleep or
nonrestorative long time-in-bed in middle-aged and older adults. Sci Rep. 2022, 12:189. 10.1038/s41598-
021-03997-z
303. Kim H, Jung HR, Kim JB, Kim DJ: Autonomic dysfunction in sleep disorders: from neurobiological basis to
potential therapeutic approaches. J Clin Neurol. 2022, 18:140-51. 10.3988/jcn.2022.18.2.140
304. Correia AT, Lipinska G, Rauch HG, Forshaw PE, Roden LC, Rae DE: Associations between sleep-related heart
rate variability and both sleep and symptoms of depression and anxiety: a systematic review. Sleep Med.
2023, 101:106-17. 10.1016/j.sleep.2022.10.018
305. Hablitz LM, Plá V, Giannetto M, et al.: Circadian control of brain glymphatic and lymphatic fluid flow . Nat
Commun. 2020, 11:4411. 10.1038/s41467-020-18115-2
306. Haas A: Lymphatic drainage of the brain: implications for chiropractic . Ann Verteb Sublux Res. 2017,
2017:5-7.
307. Reddy OC, van der Werf YD: The sleeping brain: harnessing the power of the glymphatic system through
lifestyle choices. Brain Sci. 2020, 10: 10.3390/brainsci10110868
308. Chong PL, Garic D, Shen MD, Lundgaard I, Schwichtenberg AJ: Sleep, cerebrospinal fluid, and the
glymphatic system: a systematic review. Sleep Med Rev. 2022, 61:101572. 10.1016/j.smrv.2021.101572
309. Roura S, Álvarez G, Solà I, Cerritelli F: Do manual therapies have a specific autonomic effect? An overview
of systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2021, 16:e0260642. 10.1371/journal.pone.0260642
310. Ghorbani S, Golkashani HA, Chee NI, et al.: Multi-night at-home evaluation of improved sleep detection and
classification with a memory-enhanced consumer sleep tracker. Nat Sci Sleep. 2022, 14:645-60.
10.2147/NSS.S359789
311. Ko KR, Lee H, Han SH, et al.: Substance P, a promising therapeutic target in musculoskeletal disorders . Int J
Mol Sci. 2022, 23:2583. 10.3390/ijms23052583
312. Mashaghi A, Marmalidou A, Tehrani M, Grace PM, Pothoulakis C, Dana R: Neuropeptide substance P and the
immune response. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2016, 73:4249-64. 10.1007/s00018-016-2293-z
313. Beckly JB, Ahmad T, Jewell DP: The role of genetics in inflammatory bowel disease . Challenges in
Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Jewell DP, Mortensen NJ, Steinhart AH, Pemberton JH, Warren BF (ed):
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, Massachusetts; 2006. 10.1002/9780470753170.ch2
314. Li FX, Xu F, Lin X, et al.: The role of substance P in the regulation of bone and cartilage metabolic activity .
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020, 11:77. 10.3389/fendo.2020.00077
315. Feickert M, Burckhardt BB: Substance P in cardiovascular diseases - a bioanalytical review . Clin Chim Acta.
2019, 495:501-6. 10.1016/j.cca.2019.05.014
316. Johnson MB, Young AD, Marriott I: The therapeutic potential of targeting substance P/NK-1R interactions
in inflammatory CNS disorders. Front Cell Neurosci. 2016, 10:296. 10.3389/fncel.2016.00296
317. Iftikhar K, Siddiq A, Baig SG, Zehra S: Substance P: a neuropeptide involved in the psychopathology of
anxiety disorders. Neuropeptides. 2020, 79:101993. 10.1016/j.npep.2019.101993
318. Brennan PC, Kokjohn K, Kaltinger CJ, et al.: Enhanced phagocytic cell respiratory burst induced by spinal
manipulation: potential role of substance P. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991, 14:399-408.
319. van Loo G, Bertrand MJ: Death by TNF: a road to inflammation . Nat Rev Immunol. 2023, 23:289-303.
10.1038/s41577-022-00792-3
320. Holbrook J, Lara-Reyna S, Jarosz-Griffiths H, McDermott M: Tumour necrosis factor signalling in health and
disease. F1000Res. 2019, 8:10.12688/f1000research.17023.1
321. Leung L, Cahill CM: TNF-alpha and neuropathic pain-a review. J Neuroinflammation. 2010, 7:27.
10.1186/1742-2094-7-27
322. Brennan PC, Triano JJ, McGregor M, Kokjohn K, Hondras MA, Brennan DC: Enhanced neutrophil respiratory
burst as a biological marker for manipulation forces: duration of the effect and association with substance P
and tumor necrosis factor. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992, 15:83-9.
323. Zelová H, Hošek J: TNF-α signalling and inflammation: interactions between old acquaintances . Inflamm
Res. 2013, 62:641-51. 10.1007/s00011-013-0633-0
324. Pan H, Li H, Guo S, et al.: The mechanisms and functions of TNF-α in intervertebral disc degeneration . Exp
Gerontol. 2023, 174:112119. 10.1016/j.exger.2023.112119
325. Likhitpanichkul M, Torre OM, Gruen J, Walter BA, Hecht AC, Iatridis JC: Do mechanical strain and TNF-α
interact to amplify pro-inflammatory cytokine production in human annulus fibrosus cells?. J Biomech.
2016, 49:1214-20. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.02.029
326. Ruffilli A, Viroli G, Neri S, et al.: Mechanobiology of the human intervertebral disc: systematic review of the
literature and future perspectives. Int J Mol Sci. 2023, 24: 10.3390/ijms24032728
327. Jang D, Lee A, Shin H, et al.: The role of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) in autoimmune disease and
current TNF-α inhibitors in therapeutics. Int J Mol Sci. 2021, 22(5):2719. 10.3390/ijms22052719
328. Doss GP, Agoramoorthy G, Chakraborty C: TNF/TNFR: drug target for autoimmune diseases and immune-
mediated inflammatory diseases. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2014, 19:1028-40. 10.2741/4265
329. Zeng H: Mesoscale connectomics. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2018, 50:154-62. 10.1016/j.conb.2018.03.003
330. Ugolini G: Viruses in connectomics: viral transneuronal tracers and genetically modified recombinants as
neuroscience research tools . J Neurosci Methods. 2020, 346:108917. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2020.108917
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 36 of 39
331. Frässle S, Manjaly ZM, Do CT, Kasper L, Pruessmann KP, Stephan KE: Whole-brain estimates of directed
connectivity for human connectomics. Neuroimage. 2021, 225:117491. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117491
332. Fornito A, Zalesky A, Breakspear M: The connectomics of brain disorders . Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015, 16:159-
72. 10.1038/nrn3901
333. van den Heuvel MP, Sporns O: A cross-disorder connectome landscape of brain dysconnectivity . Nat Rev
Neurosci. 2019, 20:435-46. 10.1038/s41583-019-0177-6
334. Shi Y, Toga AW: Connectome imaging for mapping human brain pathways . Mol Psychiatry. 2017, 22:1230-
40. 10.1038/mp.2017.92
335. Haak KV, Beckmann CF: Objective analysis of the topological organization of the human cortical visual
connectome suggests three visual pathways. Cortex. 2018, 98:73-83. 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.03.020
336. Milardi D, Quartarone A, Bramanti A, et al.: The cortico-basal ganglia-cerebellar network: past, present and
future perspectives. Front Syst Neurosci. 2019, 13:61. 10.3389/fnsys.2019.00061
337. Rizzo G, Milardi D, Bertino S, et al.: The limbic and sensorimotor pathways of the human amygdala: a
structural connectivity study. Neuroscience. 2018, 385:166-80. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.05.051
338. Dum RP, Levinthal DJ, Strick PL: Motor, cognitive, and affective areas of the cerebral cortex influence the
adrenal medulla. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016, 113:9922-7. 10.1073/pnas.1605044113
339. Toschi N, Duggento A, Passamonti L: Functional connectivity in amygdalar-sensory/(pre)motor networks at
rest: new evidence from the Human Connectome Project. Eur J Neurosci. 2017, 45:1224-9.
10.1111/ejn.13544
340. Dum RP, Levinthal DJ, Strick PL: The mind-body problem: circuits that link the cerebral cortex to the
adrenal medulla. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019, 116:26321-8. 10.1073/pnas.1902297116
341. Levinthal DJ, Strick PL: Multiple areas of the cerebral cortex influence the stomach . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A. 2020, 117:13078-83. 10.1073/pnas.2002737117
342. Marder E: Neuromodulation of neuronal circuits: back to the future . Neuron. 2012, 76:1-11.
10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.010
343. Kringelbach ML, Cruzat J, Cabral J, et al.: Dynamic coupling of whole-brain neuronal and neurotransmitter
systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020, 117:9566-76. 10.1073/pnas.1921475117
344. Benarroch EE: The central autonomic network: functional organization, dysfunction, and perspective . Mayo
Clin Proc. 1993, 68:988-1001. 10.1016/s0025-6196(12)62272-1
345. Valenza G, Sclocco R, Duggento A, Passamonti L, Napadow V, Barbieri R, Toschi N: The central autonomic
network at rest: uncovering functional MRI correlates of time-varying autonomic outflow. Neuroimage.
2019, 197:383-90. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.04.075
346. Hachem LD, Wong SM, Ibrahim GM: The vagus afferent network: emerging role in translational
connectomics. Neurosurg Focus. 2018, 45:E2. 10.3171/2018.6.FOCUS18216
347. Sklerov M, Dayan E, Browner N: Functional neuroimaging of the central autonomic network: recent
developments and clinical implications. Clin Auton Res. 2019, 29:555-66. 10.1007/s10286-018-0577-0
348. Al-Khazraji BK, Shoemaker JK: The human cortical autonomic network and volitional exercise in health and
disease. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2018, 43:1122-30. 10.1139/apnm-2018-0305
349. Shoemaker JK, Norton KN, Baker J, Luchyshyn T: Forebrain organization for autonomic cardiovascular
control. Auton Neurosci. 2015, 188:5-9. 10.1016/j.autneu.2014.10.022
350. Potts JT: Inhibitory neurotransmission in the nucleus tractus solitarii: implications for baroreflex resetting
during exercise. Exp Physiol. 2006, 91:59-72. 10.1113/expphysiol.2005.032227
351. Potts JT: Neural circuits controlling cardiorespiratory responses: baroreceptor and somatic afferents in the
nucleus tractus solitarius. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2002, 29:103-11. 10.1046/j.1440-1681.2002.03613.x
352. Edwards IJ, Deuchars SA, Deuchars J: The intermedius nucleus of the medulla: a potential site for the
integration of cervical information and the generation of autonomic responses. J Chem Neuroanat. 2009,
38:166-75. 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2009.01.001
353. Smith SA, Mitchell JH, Garry MG: The mammalian exercise pressor reflex in health and disease . Exp Physiol.
2006, 91:89-102. 10.1113/expphysiol.2005.032367
354. Levinthal DJ, Strick PL: The motor cortex communicates with the kidney . J Neurosci. 2012, 32:6726-31.
10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0406-12.2012
355. Amann M: Significance of Group III and IV muscle afferents for the endurance exercising human . Clin Exp
Pharmacol Physiol. 2012, 39:831-5. 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2012.05681.x
356. Gray MA, Rylander K, Harrison NA, Wallin BG, Critchley HD: Following one's heart: cardiac rhythms gate
central initiation of sympathetic reflexes. J Neurosci. 2009, 29:1817-25. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3363-08.2009
357. Goswami R, Frances MF, Shoemaker JK: Representation of somatosensory inputs within the cortical
autonomic network. Neuroimage. 2011, 54:1211-20. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.09.050
358. Goswami R, Frances MF, Steinback CD, Shoemaker JK: Forebrain organization representing baroreceptor
gating of somatosensory afferents within the cortical autonomic network. J Neurophysiol. 2012, 108:453-66.
10.1152/jn.00764.2011
359. Gademan MG, Sun Y, Han L, et al.: Rehabilitation: periodic somatosensory stimulation increases arterial
baroreflex sensitivity in chronic heart failure patients. Int J Cardiol. 2011, 152:237-41.
10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.07.022
360. Berntson GG, Khalsa SS: Neural circuits of interoception . Trends Neurosci. 2021, 44:17-28.
10.1016/j.tins.2020.09.011
361. Zhang XY, Wang JJ, Zhu JN: Cerebellar fastigial nucleus: from anatomic construction to physiological
functions. Cerebellum Ataxias. 2016, 3:9. 10.1186/s40673-016-0047-1
362. Zhu JN, Yung WH, Kwok-Chong Chow B, Chan YS, Wang JJ: The cerebellar-hypothalamic circuits: potential
pathways underlying cerebellar involvement in somatic-visceral integration. Brain Res Rev. 2006, 52:93-
106. 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2006.01.003
363. Cao BB, Huang Y, Jiang YY, Qiu YH, Peng YP: Cerebellar fastigial nuclear glutamatergic neurons regulate
immune function via hypothalamic and sympathetic pathways. J Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 2015, 10:162-78.
10.1007/s11481-014-9572-y
364. Xu FF, Huang Y, Wang XQ, Qiu YH, Peng YP: Modulation of immune function by glutamatergic neurons in
the cerebellar interposed nucleus via hypothalamic and sympathetic pathways. Brain Behav Immun. 2014,
38:263-71. 10.1016/j.bbi.2014.02.011
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 37 of 39
365. Arce-McShane FI, Ross CF, Takahashi K, Sessle BJ, Hatsopoulos NG: Primary motor and sensory cortical
areas communicate via spatiotemporally coordinated networks at multiple frequencies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U
S A. 2016, 113:5083-8. 10.1073/pnas.1600788113
366. Li J, Liu T, Dong Y, Kondoh K, Lu Z: Trans-synaptic neural circuit-tracing with neurotropic viruses . Neurosci
Bull. 2019, 35:909-20. 10.1007/s12264-019-00374-9
367. Czura CJ, Tracey KJ: Autonomic neural regulation of immunity. J Intern Med. 2005, 257:156-66.
10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01442.x
368. Bassi GS, Kanashiro A, Coimbra NC, Terrando N, Maixner W, Ulloa L: Anatomical and clinical implications of
vagal modulation of the spleen. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020, 112:363-73. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.02.011
369. Howland RH: Vagus nerve stimulation. Curr Behav Neurosci Rep. 2014, 1:64-73. 10.1007/s40473-014-0010-
5
370. Yang J, Phi JH: The present and future of vagus nerve stimulation . J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2019, 62:344-52.
10.3340/jkns.2019.0037
371. Chakravarthy K, Chaudhry H, Williams K, Christo PJ: Review of the uses of vagal nerve stimulation in
chronic pain management. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2015, 19:54. 10.1007/s11916-015-0528-6
372. Trevizol AP, Shiozawa P, Taiar I, et al.: Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) for major
depressive disorder: an open label proof-of-concept trial. Brain Stimul. 2016, 9:453-4.
10.1016/j.brs.2016.02.001
373. Tisi G, Franzini A, Messina G, Savino M, Gambini O: Vagus nerve stimulation therapy in treatment-resistant
depression: a series report. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014, 68:606-11. 10.1111/pcn.12166
374. Krahl SE: Vagus nerve stimulation for epilepsy: a review of the peripheral mechanisms . Surg Neurol Int.
2012, 3:S47-52. 10.4103/2152-7806.91610
375. Sinniger V, Pellissier S, Fauvelle F, et al.: A 12-month pilot study outcomes of vagus nerve stimulation in
Crohn's disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2020, 32:e13911. 10.1111/nmo.13911
376. Koopman FA, Chavan SS, Miljko S, et al.: Vagus nerve stimulation inhibits cytokine production and
attenuates disease severity in rheumatoid arthritis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016, 113:8284-9.
10.1073/pnas.1605635113
377. Ellrich J: Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation . J Clin Neurophysiol. 2019, 36:437-42.
10.1097/WNP.0000000000000576
378. Safi S, Ellrich J, Neuhuber W: Myelinated axons in the auricular branch of the human vagus nerve . Anat Rec
(Hoboken). 2016, 299:1184-91. 10.1002/ar.23391
379. Butt MF, Albusoda A, Farmer AD, Aziz Q: The anatomical basis for transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve
stimulation. J Anat. 2020, 236:588-611. 10.1111/joa.13122
380. Frangos E, Ellrich J, Komisaruk BR: Non-invasive access to the vagus nerve central projections via electrical
stimulation of the external ear: fMRI evidence in humans. Brain Stimul. 2015, 8:624-36.
10.1016/j.brs.2014.11.018
381. Badran BW, Dowdle LT, Mithoefer OJ, et al.: Neurophysiologic effects of transcutaneous auricular vagus
nerve stimulation (taVNS) via electrical stimulation of the tragus: a concurrent taVNS/fMRI study and
review. Brain Stimul. 2018, 11:492-500. 10.1016/j.brs.2017.12.009
382. Frangos E, Komisaruk BR: Access to vagal projections via cutaneous electrical stimulation of the neck: fMRI
evidence in healthy humans. Brain Stimul. 2017, 10:19-27. 10.1016/j.brs.2016.10.008
383. Rong P, Liu J, Wang L, et al.: Effect of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation on major depressive
disorder: a nonrandomized controlled pilot study. J Affect Disord. 2016, 195:172-9.
10.1016/j.jad.2016.02.031
384. Kong J, Fang J, Park J, Li S, Rong P: Treating depression with transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve
stimulation: state of the art and future perspectives. Front Psychiatry. 2018, 9:20. 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00020
385. Zhang Y, Huang Y, Li H, et al.: Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) for migraine: an
fMRI study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021, 46:145-50. 10.1136/rapm-2020-102088
386. Straube A, Ellrich J, Eren O, Blum B, Ruscheweyh R: Treatment of chronic migraine with transcutaneous
stimulation of the auricular branch of the vagal nerve (auricular t-VNS): a randomized, monocentric clinical
trial. J Headache Pain. 2015, 16:543. 10.1186/s10194-015-0543-3
387. Teckentrup V, Neubert S, Santiago JC, Hallschmid M, Walter M, Kroemer NB: Non-invasive stimulation of
vagal afferents reduces gastric frequency. Brain Stimul. 2020, 13:470-3. 10.1016/j.brs.2019.12.018
388. Clancy JA, Mary DA, Witte KK, Greenwood JP, Deuchars SA, Deuchars J: Non-invasive vagus nerve
stimulation in healthy humans reduces sympathetic nerve activity. Brain Stimul. 2014, 7:871-7.
10.1016/j.brs.2014.07.031
389. Gurel NZ, Wittbrodt MT, Jung H, et al.: Transcutaneous cervical vagal nerve stimulation reduces
sympathetic responses to stress in posttraumatic stress disorder: a double-blind, randomized, sham
controlled trial. Neurobiol Stress. 2020, 13:100264. 10.1016/j.ynstr.2020.100264
390. Drewes AM, Brock C, Rasmussen SE, et al.: Short-term transcutaneous non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation
may reduce disease activity and pro-inflammatory cytokines in rheumatoid arthritis: results of a pilot study.
Scand J Rheumatol. 2021, 50:20-7. 10.1080/03009742.2020.1764617
391. Peeples L: Core concept: the rise of bioelectric medicine sparks interest among researchers, patients, and
industry. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019, 116:24379-82. 10.1073/pnas.1919040116
392. Katayama K, Saito M: Muscle sympathetic nerve activity during exercise . J Physiol Sci. 2019, 69:589-98.
10.1007/s12576-019-00669-6
393. Gauthey A, Morra S, van de Borne P, Deriaz D, Maes N, le Polain de Waroux JB: Sympathetic effect of
auricular transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on healthy subjects: a crossover controlled clinical trial
comparing vagally mediated and active control stimulation using microneurography. Front Physiol. 2020,
11:599896. 10.3389/fphys.2020.599896
394. Mithani K, Wong SM, Mikhail M, et al.: Somatosensory evoked fields predict response to vagus nerve
stimulation. Neuroimage Clin. 2020, 26:102205. 10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102205
395. Kim J, Loggia ML, Cahalan CM, et al.: The somatosensory link in fibromyalgia: functional connectivity of the
primary somatosensory cortex is altered by sustained pain and is associated with clinical/autonomic
dysfunction. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015, 67:1395-405. 10.1002/art.39043
396. Kirschner MW: The meaning of systems biology . Cell. 2005, 121:503-4. 10.1016/j.cell.2005.05.005
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 38 of 39
397. Pickar JG, Bolton PS: Spinal manipulative therapy and somatosensory activation . J Electromyogr Kinesiol.
2012, 22:785-94. 10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.01.015
398. Korr IM: Proprioceptors and somatic dysfunction. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1975, 74:638-50.
399. Korr IM: Somatic dysfunction, osteopathic manipulative treatment, and the nervous system: a few facts,
some theories, many questions. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1986, 86:109-14.
400. Haavik-Taylor H, Murphy B: Cervical spine manipulation alters sensorimotor integration: a somatosensory
evoked potential study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007, 118:391-402. 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.09.014
401. Taylor HH, Murphy B: Altered central integration of dual somatosensory input after cervical spine
manipulation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010, 33:178-88. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.01.005
402. Haavik H, Niazi IK, Holt K, Murphy B: Effects of 12 weeks of chiropractic care on central integration of dual
somatosensory input in chronic pain patients: a preliminary study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2017,
40:127-38. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2016.10.002
403. Botelho MB, Andrade BB: Effect of cervical spine manipulative therapy on judo athletes' grip strength . J
Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2012, 35:38-44. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2011.09.005
404. Haavik H, Murphy B: Subclinical neck pain and the effects of cervical manipulation on elbow joint position
sense. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2011, 34:88-97. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.12.009
405. Taylor HH, Murphy B: Altered sensorimotor integration with cervical spine manipulation . J Manipulative
Physiol Ther. 2008, 31:115-26. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.12.011
406. Holt K, Niazi IK, Nedergaard RW, et al.: The effects of a single session of chiropractic care on strength,
cortical drive, and spinal excitability in stroke patients. Sci Rep. 2019, 9:2673. 10.1038/s41598-019-39577-5
407. Castiglioni P, Faes L, Valenza G: Assessing complexity in physiological systems through biomedical signals
analysis. Entropy (Basel). 2020, 22:1005. 10.3390/e22091005
408. Kwon C, Binongo JN, McCoy M: Secondary analysis of a dataset to estimate the prevalence of vertebral
subluxation and its implications for health promotion and prevention. Cureus. 2023, 15:e48755.
10.7759/cureus.48755
409. Lillie EO, Patay B, Diamant J, Issell B, Topol EJ, Schork NJ: The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for
individualizing medicine?. Per Med. 2011, 8:161-73. 10.2217/pme.11.7
410. Russell D: The assessment and correction of vertebral subluxation is central to chiropractic practice: is there
a gap in the clinical evidence?. J Contemp Chiropr. 2019, 2:4-17.
411. Castillo RC, Scharfstein DO, MacKenzie EJ: Observational studies in the era of randomized trials: finding the
balance. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012, 94 Suppl 1:112-17. 10.2106/JBJS.L.00242
412. Titler MG: The evidence for evidence-based practice implementation . Patient Safety and Quality: An
Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Hughes RG (ed): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,
Rockville; 2008.
413. Nissen T, Wynn R: The clinical case report: a review of its merits and limitations . BMC Res Notes. 2014,
7:264. 10.1186/1756-0500-7-264
2024 Haas et al. Cureus 16(3): e56223. DOI 10.7759/cureus.56223 39 of 39
