
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

38699673
95040
10.26603/001c.95040
Original Research
Combined Effects of Glenohumeral Mobilization, Stretching, and Thoracic Manipulation on Shoulder Internal Rotation Range of Motion
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7146-4537
Swanson Brian T 1
Hagenbruch Marissa 1
Lapaan Bernardine 1
Skipalskiy Kirill 1
1 Rehabilitation Sciences University of Hartford https://ror.org/034gcgd08
Corresponding author: Brian Swanson PT, DSc University of Hartford, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences 200 Bloomfield Ave W. Hartford, CT 06117 bswanson@hartford.edu
1 4 2024
2024
19 4 394409
11 8 2023
7 2 2024
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background/purpose

Interventions including posterior glenohumeral mobilizations (PGM), sleeper stretches, and thoracic manipulation are commonly used to address posterior shoulder tightness. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of adding thoracic manipulation to PGM and sleeper stretches on passive range of motion (PROM), joint mobility, and infraspinatus electromyographic (EMG) activity in shoulders with decreased internal rotation (IR) PROM.

Design

Randomized Sequential Intervention Laboratory Study

Methods

Forty individuals with clinically significant IR loss attended two study sessions. Participants were randomized to receive five 30 seconds bouts of either grade III PGM or sleeper stretching. Following a seven-day washout period, all participants attended a second session and received a prescriptive supine HVLA manipulation targeting the T3-4 segment, followed by the previously randomized intervention. Outcome measures included internal rotation PROM, horizontal adduction PROM, posterior glenohumeral joint translation assessed via ultrasound imaging, and EMG activity of the infraspinatus during a PGM. All outcome measures were assessed pre- and immediately post-intervention and compared statistically.

Results

There were significant within-group, but not between-group, differences for IR and horizontal adduction PROM following a single session of PGM or sleeper stretch. When combined with thoracic manipulation, significantly smaller within session changes of IR PROM were observed for both PGM (mean difference 4.4, p=0.017) and sleeper stretches (mean difference 6.4, p=0.0005). There were no significant between group differences for horizontal adduction PROM, humeral head translation, or EMG activity across all time points.

Discussion

Both GH posterior mobilizations and sleeper stretches improved IR and horizontal adduction PROM in a single session. The addition of thoracic manipulation prior to local shoulder interventions resulted in smaller gains of both IR and horizontal adduction ROM.

Level of evidence

Level 2

manipulation
mobilization
range of motion
shoulder
stretching
thoracic spine
This work was supported in part by a University of Hartford Greenberg Junior Faculty Grant. This support does not necessarily imply endorsement by the University of Hartford of project conclusions.
==== Body
pmcBACKGROUND

Shoulder pain is among the most common musculoskeletal conditions in adults. Posterior shoulder tightness (PST), and associated glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD), is one cause of shoulder pain that has been consistently associated with shoulder pathology.1–6 PST may result from both muscular tightness and/or posterior capsular tightness,6–10 and manifests clinically as limited internal rotation (IR)11 and horizontal adduction range of motion (ROM).12 Posterior capsular tightness has been shown to increase antero-superior humeral head migration,13 potentially leading to impingement syndrome,12 while the posterior rotator cuff and posterior deltoid have also been described as potential sources of PST.6 Electromyographic activity of the posterior rotator cuff muscles has been shown to be elevated in individuals with shoulder pain14 and stiffness,15 and elevated levels of muscular activity can influence angular ROM.16 Clinically, other than non-validated end feel testing which clinically appears more elastic in the presence of muscle shortening and firmer in the presence of capsular shortening, one challenge is the inability to differentiate muscular and capsular tightness as a cause of PST17 and thus guide treatment. Overall, this distinction may not be possible, as the infraspinatus has been shown to be reflexively active in response to discharge of capsular afferents as part of the synergistic interplay of static and dynamic stabilizers,18,19 and a combined source of PST is likely in most individuals.6

Posterior glide mobilizations (PGM) have been demonstrated to improve ROM in patients with a variety of shoulder pathologies.11,20 PGM are an anterior-to-posterior directed force applied to the humeral head, designed to translate the humeral head posteriorly within the glenoid fossa. Improved ROM may be due to capsular stretch, as the ability of PGM to produce a tensile load on the posterior capsule has been well established.21–23 Prolonged bouts of joint mobilization may also produce neuromuscular changes, including decreased local resting electromyographic (EMG) activity.24 Previous authors have demonstrated improved humeral head translation accompanied by decreased EMG activity of the infraspinatus following sustained or oscillatory grade III PGM.15 Accordingly, improvements observed post-mobilization may be, at least partially, the result of decreased muscular activity.

Stretching techniques are also well supported in the literature to improve shoulder ROM,2,25 commonly assumed to target elongation of the local musculature. Decreased neuromuscular activity following stretching in individuals with pathology is also well documented.26 Static stretching appears to have an inhibitory effect on the involved muscles, although this effect has not been seen consistently in healthy individuals.27 Static stretching has also been shown to result in decreased force output and decreased EMG activity of the involved muscle group(s).27 Stretching the muscles of the rotator cuff may decrease their overall resistance to humeral head translation. However, the effects of stretching interventions on translatoric mobility within the shoulder and EMG activity of the rotator cuff have not been established.

Thoracic manipulation is commonly included in the treatment of individuals with shoulder pathology although systematic reviews offer conflicting conclusions regarding the effects in this population.28,29 Mintken et al. found baseline IR passive range of motion (PROM) limited to <53°, as is observed in individuals with PST, to be predictive as part of a test battery to determine likelihood of success for individuals with shoulder pain receiving cervicothoracic manual therapy including thoracic manipulation,30 and da Silva et al. observed increased shoulder flexion and abduction ROM in individuals with shoulder pain following a single T4-5 manipulation.31 Prior researchers have suggested that observed functional and GH ROM changes following thoracic manipulation are likely not due to mechanical changes, i.e. alterations of thoracic mobility or scapular kinematics.32 Rather, spinal manipulation is generally believed to cause a wide array of neurophysiologic effects, including either muscular excitation or inhibition.33,34 It is possible that the observed functional improvements observed following thoracic manipulation are due to neurophysiologic effects, potentially including some combination of decreased posterior rotator cuff activity and/or alterations in the afferent discharge from the glenohumeral capsule, and it is currently unclear if thoracic manipulation will result in decreased infraspinatus EMG activity, along with increased shoulder IR PROM and posterior joint mobility, in individuals with a loss of IR PROM.

In clinical practice, each of these techniques are widely utilized, and often in combination. However, the authors are not aware of any trials reporting a comparison of the immediate effects of the PGM and sleeper stretches in conjunction with thoracic manipulation on PROM, humeral head translation, and EMG activity in individuals who lack glenohumeral IR PROM. The authors hypothesized that the addition of thoracic manipulation would result in inhibition of the infraspinatus and be accompanied by greater gains in ROM and translation following PGM or stretching when compared to PGM or stretching alone. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of adding thoracic manipulation to PGM and sleeper stretches on PROM, joint mobility, and infraspinatus EMG activity in shoulders with decreased IR PROM.

METHODS

This study utilized an assessor blinded, sequential, quasi-experimental repeated measures design that occurred in the human performance lab at the University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT, USA between March 31 and June 30, 2021. The study was approved by the University of Hartford Institutional Review Board, and prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04777370.

Of the variables considered for this study, while IR PROM was considered the primary outcome of interest, EMG activity had the smallest reported effect size. Therefore, the sample size was determined using the differences in EMG activity observed in prior studies. Utilizing an α=0.05, 1-β=0.80, and a 5% difference in EMG activity between groups as observed by Muth35 and a standard deviation of ±5 as reported by Dunning and Rushton,36 a minimum of 16 subjects per group were required. To account for potential attrition and to ensure adequate sample size, 40 individuals (20 per combined intervention group) were enrolled.

A convenience sample of individuals who self-identified as having limited IR ROM was recruited via flyer, email, and word of mouth at the University of Hartford.

All participants were screened for inclusion/exclusion criteria via questionnaire and a brief screening exam. Volunteers were included if they were between the ages of 18-60 years old, and presented with a loss of GH IR PROM greater than 15° at 90° of shoulder abduction while seated with the scapula manually stabilized compared to the contralateral side.2

Consistent with prior studies examining the shoulder and thoracic spine,37,38 individuals were excluded if they reported any of the following conditions: current neck or upper back pain; prior shoulder, neck or upper back surgery; any previous injury to the neck or thoracic area; active inflammatory disease; osteoporosis; signs/symptoms of radiculopathy; upper motor neuron lesions; spinal cord pathology; local infection; active or history of cancer; long term corticosteroid use; systemically unwell; systemic hypermobility; connective tissue disease; pregnancy or recent pregnancy; blood clotting disorder; receiving workman’s compensation or involved in active litigation; or any other known contraindication to manual therapy.

Participants were randomized to either the mobilization or stretching intervention during the first session. A blinded third party prepared a set of sealed, opaque envelopes containing the intervention; participants selected an envelope and allocation was revealed to the examiner immediately prior to the intervention. During the second session, all participants received the thoracic manipulation intervention followed by the previously selected mobilization or stretching intervention.

All outcome measures were assessed by research associates blinded to group allocation.

Internal rotation PROM at 90° abduction: IR PROM of the involved shoulder was assessed in a seated position at 90 degrees abduction, with the scapula manually stabilized9 (MDC90: <5.5°).38 Measurements were performed using the inclinometer app for Android; smartphone based inclinometers have demonstrated excellent agreement with goniometry for ROM measurements of the shoulder (SEM overall: 3.6°, IR at 90° abd: 6.3°).39 Two trials were performed both pre-post intervention with the mean ROM used for analysis.

Horizontal adduction PROM: PST was assessed with the participant side-lying on the uninvolved side with the hips and knees flexed,1 as humeral horizontal adduction motion is suggested to be the most consistent indicator of posterior shoulder mobility deficits.40 The participants arm was placed in 90° abduction and neutral rotation and grasped by the researcher just distal to the humeral epicondyles.8 The scapula was stabilized by the researcher and the arm was passively brought into maximal horizontal adduction, defined as the point at which movement ceased or the researcher could no longer stabilize the scapula1 (SEM 3°, MDC90 8°).41 Two trials were performed both pre-post intervention; measurements were performed using the inclinometer app for Android with the mean ROM used for analysis.

Electromyography (EMG): Muscle activity of the infraspinatus was collected using a Delsys Trigno EMG system (Delsys, Boston, MA) via surface electrodes. After exposing the posterior shoulder girdle, the area of the infraspinatus was cleaned using a cloth alcohol prep pad, and the skin at the area of electrode placement was vigorously abraded for 5 seconds. A calibrated wireless electrode was then placed according to SENIAM guidelines.42 Once electrode placement was complete, each participant performed a standardizing reference contraction of the infraspinatus to ensure optimal EMG activity. The infraspinatus Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction (MVIC) was performed in standing, with the participant’s elbow against their side and flexed to 90°, and their distal forearm in neutral placed against a wall. The participant was asked to provide their maximal effort into external rotation against the wall for a period of five seconds. The peak activity during MVIC was selected for analysis using EMGworks (Delsys, Boston, MA) software.

Participants were then positioned supine on a standard plinth. To assess muscular activity during posterior humeral head translation, all participants received a 15 second sustained grade III PGM serving as the reference mobilization,43 with concurrent EMG and ultrasound data collection. To minimize motion artifact, the middle five seconds were utilized as the epoch of interest for EMG analysis. Reference mobilizations occurred at two time points: immediately pre- and immediately post-intervention.

Prior to analysis, all EMG data were RMS filtered using EMGworks software to create linear envelopes and normalized to the MVIC. Intraday EMG assessment of the infraspinatus using sub-maximal contraction has been shown to be reliable (ICC=0.98)44 and SEM values of 3.2-6.4% have been reported for surface EMG of the infraspinatus.45 Mean and peak values of infraspinatus activity during the reference mobilizations were calculated and compared between conditions during analysis.

Humeral Head Translation: A SonoSite MiniMaxx musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) unit (SonoSite, Bothell, WA) with a 5-11MHz linear transducer was utilized to measure the amount of humeral head translation occurring in the shoulder joint during the PGM techniques. US imaging has been shown to be a reliable measure of posterior translation of the humeral head during mobilization.46 The transducer was oriented horizontally over the anterior shoulder visualizing the coracoid process, the lesser tuberosity, and the biceps tendon in the display. (Figure 1) With the arm held in the GH resting position, a resting image was taken. The examiner then performed a PGM of the shoulder (static x 15 seconds) and a second image was obtained. For each image, a measurement of the distance between the most anterior aspect of the coracoid and the most anterior aspect of the lesser tuberosity was obtained. The amount of posterior humeral head translation was determined by subtracting the distance at rest from the distance during mobilization. Measures of humeral head position assessing anterior landmarks have been shown to have high levels of intra-tester reliability (ICC 0.93), SEM 0.5-1.0mm, SDD 1.6-2.7mm.47

199880 Figure 1. Ultrasound imaging of posterior translation

A: Glenohumeral joint in resting position, B: Glenohumeral joint during posterior glide, C: Positioning of ultrasound transducer. Measurements of posterior glenohumeral translation were taken at rest (A); beginning at the coracoid (1), the horizontal distance to the lesser tuberosity (2) was recorded to assure consistent assessment of vertical distance. Measurements from point 2 to the lesser tuberosity (3) determined the vertical distance (line 2-3). A PGM joint was then performed (B), and the measurements were repeated at a point equidistant from the coracoid (line 1-2). Translation= [vertical distance (B) - vertical distance (A)]

Interventions

Mobilization: All interventions were performed by an experienced therapist with fellowship training in manual therapy. The participant was positioned supine on a plinth, with their scapula stabilized against a firm wedge on the table, and the shoulder joint in the resting position (approx. 55° abduction, 30° horizontal adduction, and slight external rotation). With the extremity held in the same position, the researcher applied five 30-second bouts of sustained grade III PGM.15

Stretching: All participants randomized to the stretching group performed five 30-second holds of the sleeper stretch. This was performed by lying on the side to be stretched, elevating the upper arm to 90° on the support surface with the elbow bent 90°, then passively internally rotating the shoulder with force provided by with the opposite arm.2 Participants were instructed to push to the point of moderate-to-strong stretch within their tolerance and no more than mild discomfort (<4/10).

Thoracic manipulation: All individuals received a single supine grade V thrust manipulation as described by Cleland,48,49 localized to the T3-4 segment. The supine technique was selected as it has been shown to elicit a greater change in pain when compared to seated techniques,50 and is more readily applied to the upper thoracic region than prone techniques. If a cavitation (“pop”) was not heard or felt by either the subject or examiner, a second thrust was performed.

Participant flow

Session #1: Baseline data collection → randomized intervention → post-intervention data collection → 7-day washout period51,52

Session #2: Baseline data collection → Thoracic manipulation → post-manipulation data collection → randomized intervention → post-intervention data collection

Based on the findings of Wang and Meadows, the effects of spinal manipulation on the shoulder last greater than 10 but less than 20 minutes post intervention.53 Therefore, all additional interventions and assessment took place within a 10-minute timeframe following the initial thoracic manipulation. The results of the final measurements taken during session two were compared to the results of session one to assess the additive effect of the thoracic manipulation.

Data analysis

All data were analyzed quantitatively in aggregate form using SPSS (IBM SPSS 25, Armonk, NY) and descriptive statistics were calculated using Microsoft Excel. The level of significance was established a priori with the α value set to .05 and the β set at 0.2.

Dependent variables included changes in IR and horizontal adduction ROM, change in humeral head translation, and change in EMG activity during reference PGM. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles, and any missing data were imputed using baseline observations carried forward as a conservative estimate of effect.54 All data were assessed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test, visual inspection of the Q-Q plot and the Levene statistic for homogeneity of variance. Analyses were completed with and without outliers, defined as data points beyond the 95th percentile. No outliers materially affected the results, and therefore remained as the observed values best represent the sample characteristics.

Between group differences were assessed with repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), pairwise testing, and post-hoc testing as appropriate. Simple between group comparisons were assessed with independent t-tests, and within group comparisons were assessed with paired t-tests. As participants served as their own controls, the cumulative effects of the combined thoracic manipulation and mobilization/stretching intervention were compared to the single intervention session results. Effect sizes were calculated using the Cohen’s d statistic; effect sizes d=0.2 were considered small, d=0.5 medium, and d=0.8 large. Between session analyses of EMG data were not performed, as between session reliability of surface EMG is modest at best.55

RESULTS

Participant flow is detailed in Figure 2; demographics and baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. There were no adverse events reported at any time during this study.

199881 Table 1. Demographics and baseline values

	PGM n=20	Sleeper n=20	p-value	
Age (yrs.)	25.7±6.1	23.6±2.5	0.16	
Gender (male, %)	11, 55%	13, 65%	0.747	
Side (right, %)	10, 50%	13, 65%	0.523	
Height (m)	1.73± 0.11	1.74±0.10	0.756	
Weight (kg)	78.56±19.01	79.02±15.86	0.934	
Baseline IR	26.8±6.4°	28.3±6.8°	0.493	
Baseline Horizontal Add	8.5±9.2°	9.6±5.0°	0.632	
Baseline Humeral Head Translation (mm)	8.5±3.6	9.1±4.6	0.637	
PGM= posterior glenohumeral mobilization; Sleeper = sleeper stretch

199882 Figure 2. Participant Flow Diagram

IR PROM= Internal rotation passive range of motion; PST= horizontal adduction ROM as a measure of posterior shoulder tightness; EMG= electromyography of the infraspinatus; Translation= glenohumeral posterior glide assessed with imaging ultrasound

Session 1

Following single interventions (PGM, sleeper stretching) no significant differences were observed between groups for IR ROM, horizontal adduction ROM, humeral head translation, or EMG activity. However, both interventions resulted in statistically significant within group changes (p<0.0001) with large effect sizes for IR (PGM 8.8±5.5°, 95% CI [6.4, 11.2], d=1.6; Sleeper 10.0±4.9°, 95% CI [7.9, 12.2], d=2.02) and horizontal adduction ROM (PGM 5.2±4.5°, 95% CI [3.2,7.2] d=1.15; Sleeper 3.1±2.1°, 95% CI [2.2,4.0], d=1.48) which also exceeded the SEM of the measures and IR ROM exceeding the MDC90 for both groups.

Changes in humeral head translation were observed within each group that were not intuitive. The change in measured excursion [(end position2 – starting position2)-(end position1 – starting position1)] resulted in significant within group differences for the sleeper stretch (1.72±2.93mm, 95% CI 0.4, 3.0], p=0.017, d=0.59) but not the PGM (1.23±3.56mm, 95% CI [-0.3, 2.8], p=0.138, d=0.35). However, the PGM resulted in a significant change (2.01±2.94mm, 95% CI [0.72, 3.30], p=.006, d=0.68) in posterior positioning of the humeral head (starting position2-starting position1) that was not observed for the sleeper stretch group (0.54±1.86mm, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.35], p=0.209, d=0.29) and exceeded the SEM and SDD of the measure. When both change in starting position and excursion were considered, there were significant within group changes for total posterior humeral head translation following both interventions (PGM 3.23±2.77mm, 95% CI [2.02, 4.44], p<0.0001, d=1.17; sleeper 2.68±2.77mm, 95% CI [1.47, 3.89] p=0.0003, d=0.97). EMG activity decreased following both interventions, but changes were not significantly different within (PGM -0.50±1.30%, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.07], p=0.102; sleeper -0.17±0.57%, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.08], p=0.209) or between groups (0.33%, p=0.305). (Table 2, Figure 3)

199883 Table 2. Change following shoulder interventions only (Session #1)

	PGM	Sleeper	Between Group Comparisons	
	Pre	Post	Change	Pre	Post	Change	Mean Difference of Change, [95%CI]	
IR ROM°	26.8±6.4	35.6±8.0	8.8±5.5*	28.3±6.8	38.2±9.9	10.0±4.9*	-1.2,
[-4.5,2.2]	
Horizontal Adduction°	8.5±9.2	13.7±6.00	5.2±4.5*	9.6±5.0	12.2±5.1	3.1±2.1*	2.1,
[-0.1,4.4]	
Translation (mm)	8.5±3.6	9.7±3.7	1.2±3.6	9.1±4.6	10.8±4.8	1.7±2.9*	-0.5,
[-2.6, 1.6]	
Change, resting position (mm)			2.01±2.94*			0.54±1.86	1.47,
[-0.10,3.04]	
Change, Total translation (mm)			3.23±2.77*			2.68±2.77*	0.55,
[-1.22,2.32]	
EMG, Peak
(% MVIC)	6.33±7.65	4.99±6.37	-1.35±3.49	4.16±2.56	3.88±2.31	-0.28±1.06	-1.07,
[-2.72,0.58]	
EMG, Mean
(% MVIC)	4.94±6.71	4.44±6.34	-0.50±1.30	3.72±2.56	3.55±2.24	-0.17±0.57	-0.33,
[-0.97, 0.31]	
PGM= glenohumeral posterior glide mobilization; Sleeper = Sleeper stretch; *= statistically significant difference at p <0.05

220377 Figure 3. Mean EMG (%MVIC) Pre-Post Single Intervention

PGM= Posterior glenohumeral mobilization, Sleeper= sleeper stretch

Session 2

Thoracic manipulation vs Single Interventions

There were small carryover effects for baseline IR ROM (1.9°) and horizontal adduction ROM (0.5°) between Session 1 and Session 2 that were smaller than possible measurement error and did not reach statistically significant differences. There was a significant difference in baseline GH translation between Session 1 and Session 2 (2.0mm); this difference was significant for both the PGM (2.1±4.0mm, 95% CI[0.2, 4.0], p=0.03) and sleeper stretch (2.0±3.4, 95% CI[0.4, 3.6], p=0.019) groups and was within the proposed range of SDD for the measurement.

IR PROM

Thoracic manipulation resulted in a small increase in IR ROM (0.4°±4.5, 95% CI [-1.0, 1.8], p=0.539) that was not statistically significant. There were significant between group differences following single interventions (mobilization or sleeper [session 1] and thoracic manipulation [session 2]), F1,38=60.55, p<0.001. Post-hoc testing revealed significant differences between PGM and thoracic manipulation, (mean difference -8.4°, 95% CI [-11.5,-5.3], p<0.001, d=1.67) and between sleeper stretching and thoracic manipulation, (mean difference -9.5°, 95% CI [-12.6, -6.4], p<0.001, d=2.04) with thoracic manipulation resulting in much smaller changes than the local shoulder interventions. (Table 3)

Horizontal Adduction PROM

Thoracic manipulation resulted in small changes in horizontal adduction ROM (0.6°±3.4, 95% CI [-0.5, 1.7], p=0.285) that were not statistically significant. There were significant between group differences following single interventions (mobilization or sleeper [Session 1] vs thoracic manipulation [Session 2]), F1,38=21.69, p<0.0001. Post-hoc testing revealed significant differences between PGM and thoracic manipulation, (mean difference -4.6°, 95% CI [-6.9, -2.3], p<0.0001, d=1.15) and between sleeper stretches and thoracic manipulation, (mean difference -2.5°, 95% CI [-4.7, -0.2], p=0.031, d=0.88). (Table 3)

EMG

Thoracic manipulation resulted in small changes in mean EMG activity of the infraspinatus that were not statistically significant (mean difference -0.07±0.30, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.16], p=0.177, d=0.218]. Peak EMG demonstrated statistically significant changes that did not exceed SEM (mean difference 0.41±0.94% MVIC, 95% CI [0.11, 0.71], p=0.008, d=0.44). (Table 3)

Humeral Head Translation

Thoracic manipulation resulted in small changes in humeral head translation (0.3±3.0mm, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.23], p=.517) that were not statistically significant. For change in humeral head translation, there were significant between group differences for single interventions (mobilization or sleeper [Session 1] vs thoracic manipulation [Session 2]), F1,39=9.60, p=0.004. Post-hoc testing revealed significant differences between PGM and thoracic manipulation (mean difference -1.7±3.1mm, 95% CI [-3.1, -0.2], p=0.028, d=0.58) while between group differences for sleeper stretches and thoracic manipulation did not reach statistically significant differences (mean difference -1.8±4.0mm, 95% CI [-3.7, 0.1], p=0.057, d=0.66). (Table 3)

199884 Table 3. Change following single intervention vs thoracic manipulation + intervention (Session #2)

	Baseline Measures Session 2	TS
(Session 2)	TS+GH PGM
(Session 2)	Difference Session 1-Session 2 [95% CI]	Baseline Measures Session 2	TS
(Session 2)	TS+sleeper
(Session 2)	Difference Session 1-Session 2 [95% CI]	
IR ROM°	29.6±7.8	0.4±5.1	4.4±5.9	4.4 [0.9, 7.9]*	29.4±6.7	0.5±3.9	3.6±4.8	6.4 [3.2,9.6]*	
Horizontal Adduction°	9.5±5.2	0.5±3.7	2.6±3.8	2.6 [-.04, 5.2]	9.3±4.8	0.7±3.3	1.6±4.3	1.5 [-.9, 3.9]	
Change, resting position (mm)		0.63±1.72	3.36±3.57	-1.35 [-3.44, 0.74]		0.05±1.67	1.11±2.23	-0.57 [-1.88, 0.74]	
Change, Total translation (mm)	Baseline translation: 10.6±5.5	1.57±2.94	2.97±3.68	.26 [-1.83,2.35]	Baseline translation: 11.0±3.7	0.86±2.67	2.02±2.62	0.66 [-1.07, 2.39]	
Peak EMG change,
(% MVIC)		-0.56±1.10	-0.55±0.92			-0.26±0.77	-0.47±0.50		
Mean EMG change,
(% MVIC)		-0.09±0.40	-0.09±1.35			-0.04±0.17	-0.20±0.81		
PGM= glenohumeral posterior glide mobilization; TS = thoracic manipulation; TS+GH = combined change, Thoracic manipulation + Glenohumeral PGM; Sleeper = sleeper stretch; Difference = Session 1 vs. Session 2 combined; * = statistically significant difference at p <0.05

Combined Interventions

IR PROM

There were significant differences in IR ROM between single and combined interventions, F1,38=42.17, p<0.001. When combined with thoracic manipulation, both PGM and sleeper stretches resulted in significantly smaller within session changes for IR ROM compared to single interventions: PGM (mean difference 4.4°±7.5, 95% CI [0.9, 7.9] p=0.017, d=0.77); sleeper stretch (mean difference 6.4°±6.9, 95% CI [3.2, 9.6] p=0.0005, d=1.32). (Table 3, Figure 5)

Horizontal Adduction PROM

Across all participants, there were significant differences in horizontal adduction ROM between single and combined interventions, F1,38=12.53, p=0.001. When combined with thoracic manipulation, both PGM and sleeper stretches resulted in smaller within session changes compared to single interventions that were not statistically significant: PGM (mean difference 2.6°±5.7, 95% CI [-0.04, 5.2] p=0.054, d=0.63); sleeper stretch (mean difference 1.5°, 95% CI [-0.9, 3.9] p=0.199, d=0.44). (Table 3, Figure 5)

EMG

When combined with thoracic manipulation, subsequent PGMs resulted in no further decrease in peak (mean difference -.02%±0.44% MVIC, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.19], p=.876, d=.04) and mean (mean difference .001±0.17% MVIC, 95% CI [-0.08, .08], p=0.979, d=.01) EMG activity. When combined with thoracic manipulation, subsequent sleeper stretches resulted in further reductions in both peak (mean difference 0.21±0.68% MVIC, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.53], p=0.188, d=0.31) and mean (mean difference 0.16±0.30% MVIC, 95% CI [0.02, 0.30], p=.027, d=0.53) EMG activity. (Table 3, Figure 4)

220378 Figure 4. Mean and Peak EMG (%MVIC) Pre-Post Thoracic Manipulation + Combined Interventions

PGM= Posterior glenohumeral mobilization, TS= thoracic manipulation, Sleeper= sleeper stretch

Humeral Head Translation

When combined with thoracic manipulation, changes in humeral head translation were smaller compared to mobilization or stretching alone: PGM (mean difference 0.26mm, 95% CI [-1.83, 2.35] p=0.775, d=0.08); sleeper stretch (mean difference 0.66mm, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.39] p=0.450, d=0.24), differences that were not statistically significantly different. (Table 3, Figure 5)

220379 Figure 5. Change in ROM and Humeral Head Translation by Intervention

PGM= Posterior glenohumeral mobilization, TS= thoracic manipulation, Sleeper= sleeper stretch

DISCUSSION

Overall, there were no significant differences in effect between five bouts of PGM and five bouts of sleeper stretching for IR ROM, horizontal adduction ROM, or humeral head translation. Change exceeded measurement error for each of these outcomes, suggesting that both interventions were helpful in achieving the desired outcomes. While both horizontal adduction and IR assess the motion of both the posterior muscles and posterior capsule,8 the greater observed improvement of horizontal adduction following PGM may be due to a more direct mechanical influence of PGM on the posterior capsule where mechanically the mobilization more closely approximates the test. Application of PGM at the resting position rather than in progressive end range motion may have limited the overall ROM gains observed.

Conversely, the sleeper stretch resulted in slightly greater IR gains than the PGM. The sleeper stretch is a more direct analog to the IR PROM test, with the greatest strain on the inferior fibers of the infraspinatus occurring in this position.56 Both PGM and sleeper stretches resulted in decreased EMG activity of the infraspinatus. This finding is in agreement with the conclusions of the recent systematic review by Pfleuger et al., who reported finding moderate quality evidence that “(peripheral) joint mobilization immediately decreases the activation of superficial muscles during low load conditions in symptomatic individuals”57 while also in concordance with studies regarding muscular inhibition following static stretching.27 Accordingly, clinicians should expect to see improvements in IR PROM following these interventions.

Contrary to the initial hypothesis, the addition of thoracic manipulation prior to mobilization or stretching resulted in significantly smaller gains in IR PROM which exceeded potential measurement error compared to mobilization or stretching alone. Changes in resting position were greater following combined interventions while infraspinatus EMG activity decreased following the combined interventions. Overall interpretation of the impact of combined interventions on GH translation is limited, as there were significant differences at baseline between session #1 and session #2. However, the overall difference in translation between sessions was smaller than SDD for the measure and accompanied by a difference in IR PROM of less than 2°. Accordingly, the observed 2mm difference may not be of clinical significance. It appears unlikely that the observed differences in ROM between single and combined interventions were due to differences in humeral head translation or infraspinatus EMG activity.

From the current study, it is not entirely clear which muscles or mechanisms were responsible for limiting the IR PROM gains post thoracic manipulation. Previous work has demonstrated an increase in distal muscular activity following manipulation,36,53,58 and it is possible that thoracic manipulation had an excitatory effect on the middle deltoid58,59 or other shoulder musculature. For example, Hawkes et al. observed an increase in teres minor and latissimus dorsi activation in concert with deltoid contraction in individuals with rotator cuff pathology, proposed to be a means to decrease humeral head translation.60 Given the apparent lack of linear relationship between infraspinatus activity, GH translation, and IR PROM observed in this study, the assessment of only a single RC muscle is a clear limitation of this research, and further research is required to determine which muscles are responsible for the decrease in PROM observed following thoracic manipulation.

From a neurophysiologic perspective, when considering that the addition of PGM following thoracic manipulation resulted in no further changes in EMG activity of the infraspinatus, it appears that PGM and thoracic manipulation may function through similar pathways/mechanisms. Following mobilization/manipulation, centrally mediated reflex arcs or changes in the sensitivity of the α-motoneurons have been described.61 Proprioceptive input comes from stretch sensitive mechanoreceptors in the joint capsule, muscle spindles, and from the Golgi tendon organs of local musculature, which is then mediated by the dorsal root ganglion.62 Fisher et al. suggested that high velocity manipulation appears to generate a supraspinal response, while changes following low velocity mobilization were likely the result of reduced spinal excitability.63 Contrary to their conclusions, in the current study, it appears that thoracic manipulation (high velocity) and PGM (low velocity) may have influenced a similar pathway as PGM generated no further inhibitory effect at the infraspinatus following thoracic manipulation. This discrepancy may be due to the presence of few mechanoreceptors in the shoulder capsule/ligaments,62 and responses to manual therapy may be region/tissue dependent. It is also possible that altered stretch tolerance is the result of changes to the input to nociceptive nerve endings in the joint and muscle.64 If the reduction in reflexive contraction during mobilization is due to altered nociceptive response, the current findings align with those of Coronado et al., who found a non-specific pain reduction effect at the shoulder that did not differ between cervical and shoulder thrust manipulation.65 However, the relation between the delivered manual therapy dose and subsequent treatment outcome remains unknown,66 and it may be plausible that there is not further neurophysiologic effect to be gained from further glenohumeral mobilizations following thoracic HVLA manipulation.

Conversely, stretching, and thoracic manipulation may influence different mechanisms/pathways as sleeper stretches, but not PGM, resulted in further reductions of EMG activity following thoracic manipulation. Previous research has suggested that stretching results in decreased EMG activity, likely via altered reflex sensitivity67 involving the fusiform/muscle spindle system.68 The discharge of muscle spindle endings is affected by local muscular stretch,69 while the γ-motoneuron controls the sensitivity of muscle spindle afferents as length detectors.70 Changes in γ-motoneuron activity may result in changes in 1a afferent activity and decreased α-motoneuron output.71 These apparent differences in mechanism of action between manipulation/mobilization and stretching support the concept of combined interventions with the intention of improving IR ROM, and may help explain the additive benefits of PGM and sleeper stretching observed previously.11

There is conflicting evidence regarding thoracic manipulation for individuals with shoulder dysfunction. Improvement following thoracic manual therapy has been observed in a case series of individuals with shoulder pain.72 Prior studies have demonstrated a short-term increase in scapular muscle strength, including the middle35 and lower trapezius.73 However, the observed improvements are not accompanied by changes in scapular mechanics,74 and the inclusion of thoracic manipulation vs sham manipulation may not influence outcomes for individuals with shoulder impingement.75 A recent systematic review concluded that that manipulation of the thoracic spine has questionable effectiveness when compared to other interventions for improving pain and function for individuals with upper quarter musculoskeletal dysfunctions.76 Considering the results of the current study in the context of this previous research, the authors suggest the effect of thoracic manipulation is not one size fits all, but rather should be tailored to fit the clinical goals. If the clinical goal is to decrease pain28 or improve middle/lower trapezius recruitment, then thoracic manipulation may be indicated.73,77 However, if the primary impairment is limited IR PROM with the clinical goal to improve ROM, thoracic manipulation may at best have little benefit, or at worst be counter-productive. In this instance, it appears that either PGM or sleeper stretches would yield greater benefits.

There are several limitations to consider in the interpretation of these results. First, the sample was comprised of individuals with non-clinical shoulder stiffness, and most reported very low levels of pain. Since individuals with higher levels of pain have been shown to have higher levels of posterior rotator cuff EMG activity during PGM,14 a pain dominant sample may present with different results. Inclusion was based on the presence of a significant IR PROM loss. The screening and inclusion/exclusion did not account for the possibility of osseous limitations. It is possible that individuals within the study presented with IR PROM loss due to humeral torsion or other osseous limitations which would limit the individual’s ability to demonstrate change post intervention. The EMG measures only assessed the infraspinatus, and only during PGM. Based on the results, it appears clear that assessment of a greater range of shoulder muscles is required to elucidate the source of decreased ROM after the inclusion of thoracic manipulation, and that these muscles should be assessed during IR ROM measurements as well. Thoracic manipulation was only applied at one prescriptive spinal level. While prescriptive application improves internal validity of the study in answering the question of manipulative force applied to the upper thoracic region, this is not how the techniques are generally applied clinically. It is not known if individuals would respond differently if the manipulation were applied at pragmatically identified symptomatic stiff and/or painful levels of the thoracic spine. It remains unknown whether the observed 2mm change in baseline translation between sessions was clinically meaningful, although the changes in translation were accompanied by very small changes in angular motion, and therefore appear unlikely to be meaningful. Further, while performed for a duration that is substantially less than general clinical application, the possibility that the initial PG used to determine baseline translation and EMG activity resulted in a treatment effect cannot be eliminated.

Conclusion

As expected, both GH posterior mobilizations and sleeper stretches improved both IR and horizontal adduction PROM. The addition of thoracic manipulation prior to local shoulder intervention resulted in progressive reductions of infraspinatus EMG activity but also a reduction in ROM gains for both IR and horizontal adduction. These findings suggest that if the therapeutic intent is to improve IR ROM in individuals with non-painful, stiff shoulders, the addition of thoracic manipulation may be counterproductive.
==== Refs
The reliability, minimal detectable change and construct validity of a clinical measurement for identifying posterior shoulder tightness N Am J Sports Phys Ther Kolber M.J. Hanney W.J. 2010
5 4 208 21655379
A randomized controlled comparison of stretching procedures for posterior shoulder tightness Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy McClure Philip Balaicuis Jenna Heiland David Broersma Mary Ellen Thorndike Cheryl K. Wood April Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 3 2007
37 3 108 114 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2007.2337 10.2519/jospt.2007.2337 17416125
Quantification of posterior capsule tightness and motion loss in patients with shoulder impingement The American Journal of Sports Medicine Tyler Timothy F. Nicholas Stephen J. Roy Timothy Gleim Gilbert W. SAGE Publications 1 5 2000
28 5 668 673 0363-5465 10.1177/03635465000280050801 10.1177/03635465000280050801
Glenohumeral Internal Rotation Deficit and Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Johnson Jordan E. Fullmer Joshua A. Nielsen Chaseton M. Johnson Joshua K. Moorman Claude T. III SAGE Publications 1 5 2018
6 5 2325967118773322 2325-9671 10.1177/2325967118773322 10.1177/2325967118773322 29845083
The presence and influence of posterior capsule tightness on different shoulder problems Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Duzgun Irem Turgut Elif Çinar-Medeni Özge Kafa Nihan Tuna Zeynep Elbasan Bulent Oskay Deran IOS Press 2 3 2017
30 2 187 193 1053-8127 10.3233/bmr-160731 10.3233/bmr-160731
Posterior shoulder tightness: to treat or not to treat? Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Hall Kevin Borstad John D. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 3 2018
48 3 133 136 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2018.0605 10.2519/jospt.2018.0605 29490601
Reliability, precision, accuracy, and validity of posterior shoulder tightness assessment in overhead athletes The American Journal of Sports Medicine Myers Joseph B. Oyama Sakiko Wassinger Craig A. Ricci Robert D. Abt John P. Conley Kevin M. Lephart Scott M. SAGE Publications 11 2007
35 11 1922 1930 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546507304142 10.1177/0363546507304142
Reliability and validity of a new method of measuring posterior shoulder tightness Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Tyler Timothy F. Roy Timothy Nicholas Stephen J. Gleim Gilbert W. Davies George J. Wilk Kevin E. Ellenbecker Todd Tyler Timothy F. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 5 1999
29 5 262 274 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.1999.29.5.262 10.2519/jospt.1999.29.5.262 10342563
Glenohumeral motion deficits: friend or foe? Int J Sports Phys Ther. Oct Manske R. Wilk K.E. Davies G. Ellenbecker T. Reinold M. 2013
8 5 537 53
Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit: pathogenesis and response to acute throwing Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review Kibler W. Ben Sciascia Aaron Thomas Stephen J. Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) 3 2012
20 1 34 38 1062-8592 10.1097/jsa.0b013e318244853e 10.1097/jsa.0b013e318244853e 22311291
A randomized controlled single-blinded comparison of stretching versus stretching and joint mobilization for posterior shoulder tightness measured by internal rotation motion loss Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Manske Robert C. Meschke Matt Porter Andrew Smith Barbara Reiman Michael SAGE Publications 22 12 2009
2 2 94 100 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738109347775 10.1177/1941738109347775 23015927
Patterns of flexibility, laxity, and strength in normal shoulders and shoulders with instability and impingement The American Journal of Sports Medicine Warner Jon J.P. Micheli Lyle J. Arslanian Linda E. Kennedy John Kennedy Richard SAGE Publications 7 1990
18 4 366 375 0363-5465 10.1177/036354659001800406 10.1177/036354659001800406 2403184
Translation of the humeral head on the glenoid with passive glenohumeral motion. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Harryman D T, II Sidles J A Clark J M McQuade K J Gibb T D Matsen F A 3rd Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) 10 1990
72 9 1334 1343 0021-9355 10.2106/00004623-199072090-00009 10.2106/00004623-199072090-00009
EMG activity of selected rotator cuff musculature during grade III distraction and posterior glide glenohumeral mobilization: Results of a pilot trial comparing painful and non-painful shoulders Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Swanson Brian T. Holst Brian Infante John Poenitzsch James Ortiz Alexis Informa UK Limited 1 2016
24 1 7 13 1066-9817 10.1080/10669817.2015.1106819 10.1080/10669817.2015.1106819 27252577
Changes in glenohumeral translation, electromyographic activity, and pressure-pain thresholds following sustained or oscillatory mobilizations in stiff and healthy shoulders: Results of a randomized, controlled laboratory trial Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Swanson Brian T. McAuley J. Adrienne Lawrence Michael Elsevier BV 12 2020
50 102243 102243 2468-7812 10.1016/j.msksp.2020.102243 10.1016/j.msksp.2020.102243
Small amounts of involuntary muscle activity reduce passive joint range of motion Journal of Applied Physiology Diong Joanna Gandevia Simon C. Nguyen David Foo Yanni Kastre Cecilia Andersson Katarina Butler Jane E. Héroux Martin E. American Physiological Society 1 7 2019
127 1 229 234 8750-7587 10.1152/japplphysiol.00168.2019 10.1152/japplphysiol.00168.2019
Posterior glenohumeral joint capsule contracture Shoulder & Elbow Dashottar Amitabh Borstad John SAGE Publications 10 2012
4 4 230 236 1758-5732 10.1111/j.1758-5740.2012.00180.x 10.1111/j.1758-5740.2012.00180.x 24265649
Reflexes in the shoulder muscles elicited from the human coracoacromial ligament Journal of Orthopaedic Research Diederichsen Louise Pyndt Nørregaard Jesper Krogsgaard Michael Fischer-Rasmussen Torsten Dyhre-Poulsen Poul Wiley 9 2004
22 5 976 983 0736-0266 10.1016/j.orthres.2003.12.019 10.1016/j.orthres.2003.12.019 15304268
The synergistic action of the capsule and the shoulder muscles The American Journal of Sports Medicine Guanche Carlos Knatt Theodore Solomonow Moshe Lu Yun Baratta Richard SAGE Publications 5 1995
23 3 301 306 0363-5465 10.1177/036354659502300308 10.1177/036354659502300308 7661256
The effect of anterior versus posterior glide joint mobilization on external rotation range of motion in patients with shoulder adhesive capsulitis Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Johnson Andrea J. Godges Joseph J. Zimmerman Grenith J. Ounanian Leroy L. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 3 2007
37 3 88 99 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2007.2307 10.2519/jospt.2007.2307 17416123
Characterization of tissue resistance during a dorsally directed translational mobilization of the glenohumeral joint Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Hsu Ar-Tyan Ho Larry Chang Jia-Hao Chang Guan-Liang Hedman Tom Elsevier BV 3 2002
83 3 360 366 0003-9993 10.1053/apmr.2002.30621 10.1053/apmr.2002.30621 11887117
Joint position during anterior-posterior glide mobilization: its effect on glenohumeral abduction range of motion Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Hsu Ar-Tyan Ho Larry Ho Sally Hedman Tom Elsevier BV 2 2000
81 2 210 214 0003-9993 10.1016/s0003-9993(00)90143-6 10.1016/s0003-9993(00)90143-6
The effect of cyclic loading simulating oscillatory joint mobilization on the posterior capsule of the glenohumeral joint: a cadaveric study Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Muraki Takayuki Yamamoto Nobuyuki Berglund Lawrence J. Sperling John W. Steinmann Scott P. Cofield Robert H. An Kai-Nan Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 5 2011
41 5 311 318 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2011.3448 10.2519/jospt.2011.3448 21289451
Spinal manipulation alters electromyographic activity of paraspinal muscles: a descriptive study Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics DeVocht James W. Pickar Joel G. Wilder David G. Elsevier BV 9 2005
28 7 465 471 0161-4754 10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.07.002 10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.07.002 16182019
Effects of modified posterior shoulder stretching exercises on shoulder mobility, pain, and dysfunction in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Tahran Özge Yeşilyaprak Sevgi Sevi SAGE Publications 4 2 2020
12 2 139 148 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738119900532 10.1177/1941738119900532 32017660
Electromyographic observations of the effects of static stretching upon muscular distress Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation De Vries Herbert A. Informa UK Limited 12 1961
32 4 468 479 1067-1188 10.1080/10671188.1961.10613174 10.1080/10671188.1961.10613174
Acute effects of static versus dynamic stretching on isometric peak torque, electromyography, and mechanomyography of the biceps femoris muscle J Strength Cond Res Herda Trent J Cramer Joel T Ryan Eric D McHugh Malachy P Stout Jeffrey R Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) 5 2008
22 3 809 817 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31816a82ec 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31816a82ec 18438236
Thoracic manual therapy in the management of non-specific shoulder pain: a systematic review Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Peek Aimie L. Miller Caroline Heneghan Nicola R. Informa UK Limited 27 3 2015
23 4 176 187 1066-9817 10.1179/2042618615y.0000000003 10.1179/2042618615y.0000000003 26917935
Thoracic manual therapy is not more effective than placebo thoracic manual therapy in patients with shoulder dysfunctions: A systematic review with meta-analysis Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Bizzarri Paolo Buzzatti Luca Cattrysse Erik Scafoglieri Aldo Elsevier BV 2 2018
33 1 10 2468-7812 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.10.006 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.10.006
Some factors predict successful short-term outcomes in individuals with shoulder pain receiving cervicothoracic manipulation: a single-arm trial Phys Ther Mintken Paul E. Cleland Joshua A. Carpenter Kristin J. Bieniek Melanie L. Keirns Mike Whitman Julie M. Oxford University Press (OUP) 1 1 2010
90 1 26 42 0031-9023 10.2522/ptj.20090095 10.2522/ptj.20090095
Immediate effects of spinal manipulation on shoulder motion range and pain in individuals with shoulder pain: a randomized trial Journal of Chiropractic Medicine da Silva Alyssa Conte Santos Gilmar Moraes de Godoy Marques Cláudia Mirian Marques Jefferson Luiz Brum Elsevier BV 3 2019
18 1 19 26 1556-3707 10.1016/j.jcm.2018.10.001 10.1016/j.jcm.2018.10.001 31193215
Thoracic spine manipulation in individuals with subacromial impingement syndrome does not immediately alter thoracic spine kinematics, thoracic excursion, or scapular kinematics: a randomized controlled trial Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Kardouni Joseph R. Pidcoe Peter E. Shaffer Scott W. Finucane Sheryl D. Cheatham Seth A. Sousa Catarina O. Michener Lori A. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 7 2015
45 7 527 538 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2015.5647 10.2519/jospt.2015.5647 25996365
Immediate effects of a high-velocity spine manipulation in paraspinal muscles activity of nonspecific chronic low-back pain subjects Manual Therapy Bicalho Eduardo Setti João Antônio Palma Macagnan Jones Cano José Luis Rivas Manffra Elisangela Ferretti Elsevier BV 10 2010
15 5 469 475 1356-689X 10.1016/j.math.2010.03.012 10.1016/j.math.2010.03.012
Immediate effects on electromyographic activity and pressure pain thresholds after a cervical manipulation in mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics Maduro de Camargo Viviane Alburquerque-Sendín Francisco Bérzin Fausto Cobos Stefanelli Vinicius Rodrigues de Souza Daiana P. Fernández-de-las-Peñas César Elsevier BV 5 2011
34 4 211 220 0161-4754 10.1016/j.jmpt.2011.02.002 10.1016/j.jmpt.2011.02.002 21621722
The effects of thoracic spine manipulation in subjects with signs of rotator cuff tendinopathy Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Muth Stephanie Barbe Mary F. Lauer Richard McClure Philip Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 12 2012
42 12 1005 1016 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2012.4142 10.2519/jospt.2012.4142
The effects of cervical high-velocity low-amplitude thrust manipulation on resting electromyographic activity of the biceps brachii muscle Manual Therapy Dunning James Rushton Alison Elsevier BV 10 2009
14 5 508 513 1356-689X 10.1016/j.math.2008.09.003 10.1016/j.math.2008.09.003
Development of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit from thrust joint manipulation to the cervical spine Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Puentedura Emilio J. Cleland Joshua A. Landers Merrill R. Mintken Paul Louw Adriaan Fernández-de-Las-Peñas César Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 7 2012
42 7 577 592 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2012.4243 10.2519/jospt.2012.4243 22585595
Measuring shoulder external and internal rotation strength and range of motion: comprehensive intra-rater and inter-rater reliability study of several testing protocols Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Cools Ann M. De Wilde Lieven Van Tongel Alexander Ceyssens Charlotte Ryckewaert Robin Cambier Dirk C. Elsevier BV 10 2014
23 10 1454 1461 1058-2746 10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.006 10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.006
Validation of an innovative method of shoulder range-of-motion measurement using a smartphone clinometer application Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Werner Brian C. Holzgrefe Russell E. Griffin Justin W. Lyons Matthew L. Cosgrove Christopher T. Hart Joseph M. Brockmeier Stephen F. Elsevier BV 11 2014
23 11 e275 e282 1058-2746 10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.030 10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.030
Assessing posterior shoulder contracture: the reliability and validity of measuring glenohumeral joint horizontal adduction J Athl Train Laudner K.G. Stanek J.M. Meister K. 2006
41 4 375 380 17273461
The reliability, minimal detectable change and construct validity of a clinical measurement for quantifying posterior shoulder tightness in the post-operative population Int J Sports Phys Ther. Dec Salamh P.A. Kolber M.J. 2012
7 6 565 75
Standards for surface electromyography: The European project Surface EMG for non-invasive assessment of muscles (SENIAM) Enschede: Roessingh Research and Development Stegeman D. Hermens H. 2007 108 12
Manual mobilization of the joints. joint examination and basic treatment: The extremities Kaltenborn F.M. Evjenth O. Kaltenborn T.B. Morgan D. Vollowitz E. OPTP 2011
I
A reliability of electromyographic normalization methods for the infraspinatus muscle in healthy subjects J Human Kinet Ha Sung-Min Cynn Heon-Seock Kwon Oh-Yun Park Kyue-Nam Kim Gyoung-Mo Termedia Sp. z.o.o. 1 3 2013
36 1 69 76 1899-7562 10.2478/hukin-2013-0007 10.2478/hukin-2013-0007 23717356
Electromyographic analysis of the shoulder girdle musculature during external rotation exercises Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Alizadehkhaiyat Omid Hawkes David H. Kemp Graham J. Frostick Simon P. SAGE Publications 1 11 2015
3 11 232596711561398 2325-9671 10.1177/2325967115613988 10.1177/2325967115613988 26740950
In vivo measurements of humeral movement during posterior glenohumeral mobilizations Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Talbott and Nancy R. Witt Dexter W. Informa UK Limited 22 4 2016
24 5 269 276 1066-9817 10.1179/2042618615y.0000000007 10.1179/2042618615y.0000000007 27956820
Assessment of the reliability of real time ultrasound scanning to measure the humeral head position in a number of glenohumeral joint positions Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Bdaiwi Alya H Herrington Lee Almangoush Adel Mackenzie Tanya Anne Porter Stuart B Herbert Publications PVT LTD 2014
1 1 1 2055-2386 10.7243/2055-2386-1-1 10.7243/2055-2386-1-1
Development of a clinical prediction rule for guiding treatment of a subgroup of patients with neck pain: use of thoracic spine manipulation, exercise, and patient education Phys Ther Cleland Joshua A Childs John D Fritz Julie M Whitman Julie M Eberhart Sarah L Oxford University Press (OUP) 1 1 2007
87 1 9 23 0031-9023 10.2522/ptj.20060155 10.2522/ptj.20060155
Examination of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit from thoracic spine thrust manipulation and a general cervical range of motion exercise: multi-center randomized clinical trial Phys Ther Cleland Joshua A. Mintken Paul E. Carpenter Kristin Fritz Julie M. Glynn Paul Whitman Julie Childs John D. Oxford University Press (OUP) 1 9 2010
90 9 1239 1250 0031-9023 10.2522/ptj.20100123 10.2522/ptj.20100123
A randomized clinical trial to compare the immediate effects of seated thoracic manipulation and targeted supine thoracic manipulation on cervical spine flexion range of motion and pain Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Karas Steve Olson Hunt Megan J. Informa UK Limited 2014
22 2 108 114 1066-9817 10.1179/2042618613y.0000000052 10.1179/2042618613y.0000000052 24976754
Chuna manual therapy vs usual care for patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial JAMA Network Open Lee Jinho Cho Jae-Heung Kim Koh-Woon Lee Jun-Hwan Kim Me-riong Kim Joowon Kim Min-Young Cho Hyun-Woo Lee Yoon Jae Lee Sook-Hyun Shin Joon-Shik Prokop Lawrence L. Shin Byung-Cheul Ha In-Hyuk American Medical Association (AMA) 14 7 2021
4 7 e2113757 2574-3805 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.13757 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.13757 34259850
One-week time course of the effects of Mulligan's Mobilisation with Movement and taping in painful shoulders Manual Therapy Teys Pamela Bisset Leanne Collins Natalie Coombes Brooke Vicenzino Bill Elsevier BV 10 2013
18 5 372 377 1356-689X 10.1016/j.math.2013.01.001 10.1016/j.math.2013.01.001
Immediate and carryover changes of C5-6 joint mobilization on shoulder external rotator muscle strength Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics Wang Sharon S. Meadows Jim Elsevier BV 2 2010
33 2 102 108 0161-4754 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.12.006 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.12.006
Comparison of results from different imputation techniques for missing data from an anti-obesity drug trial PLoS One Jørgensen Anders W. Lundstrøm Lars H. Wetterslev Jørn Astrup Arne Gøtzsche Peter C. Public Library of Science (PLoS) 19 11 2014
9 11 e111964 1932-6203 10.1371/journal.pone.0111964 10.1371/journal.pone.0111964 25409438
Reliability of quadriceps surface electromyography measurements is improved by two vs. single site recordings European Journal of Applied Physiology Balshaw T. G. Fry A. Maden-Wilkinson T. M. Kong P. W. Folland J. P. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 8 4 2017
117 6 1085 1094 1439-6319 10.1007/s00421-017-3595-z 10.1007/s00421-017-3595-z 28391392
Effect of posteroinferior capsule tightness on contact pressure and area beneath the coracoacromial arch during pitching motion The American Journal of Sports Medicine Muraki Takayuki Yamamoto Nobuyuki Zhao Kristin D. Sperling John W. Steinmann Scott P. Cofield Robert H. An Kai-Nan SAGE Publications 4 12 2009
38 3 600 607 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546509350074 10.1177/0363546509350074
The immediate effects of passive joint mobilisation on local muscle function. A systematic review of the literature Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Pfluegler Georg Kasper Johanna Luedtke Kerstin Elsevier BV 2 2020
45 102106 102106 2468-7812 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.102106 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.102106
Evidence for increased neuromuscular drive following spinal manipulation in individuals with subacromial pain syndrome Clinical Biomechanics Hegarty Amy K. Hsu Melody Roy Jean-Sébastien Kardouni Joseph R. Kutch Jason J. Michener Lori A. Elsevier BV 12 2021
90 105485 105485 0268-0033 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105485 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105485 34571486
The effects of thoracic spine thrust manipulation on shoulder pain, range of motion and muscle activity in 30′ s adults with rounded shoulder posture J Korean Acad Orthop Man Ther Lee J-N Yang S-H Gong W-T 2016
22 1 17 25
Shoulder muscle activation and coordination in patients with a massive rotator cuff tear: an electromyographic study Journal of Orthopaedic Research Hawkes David H. Alizadehkhaiyat Omid Kemp Graham J. Fisher Anthony C. Roebuck Margaret M. Frostick Simon P. Wiley 2012
30 7 1140 1146 0736-0266 10.1002/jor.22051 10.1002/jor.22051 22213234
Physiological effects of spinal manipulation: a review of proposed theories Physical Therapy Reviews Potter Louise McCarthy Christopher Oldham Jacqueline Informa UK Limited 9 2005
10 3 163 170 1083-3196 10.1179/108331905x55820 10.1179/108331905x55820
Shoulder reflexes Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology Diederichsen Louise Krogsgaard Michael Voigt Michael Dyhre-Poulsen Poul Elsevier BV 6 2002
12 3 183 191 1050-6411 10.1016/s1050-6411(02)00019-6 10.1016/s1050-6411(02)00019-6 12086812
The effect of velocity of joint mobilization on corticospinal excitability in individuals with a history of ankle sprain Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Fisher Beth E. Piraino Andrew Lee Ya-Yun Smith Jo Armour Johnson Sean Davenport Todd E. Kulig Kornelia Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 7 2016
46 7 562 570 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2016.6602 10.2519/jospt.2016.6602 27266885
A mechanism for altered flexibility in human skeletal muscle. The Journal of Physiology Magnusson S P Simonsen E B Aagaard P Sørensen H Kjaer M Wiley 15 11 1996
497 1 291 298 0022-3751 10.1113/jphysiol.1996.sp021768 10.1113/jphysiol.1996.sp021768 8951730
The comparative effects of spinal and peripheral thrust manipulation and exercise on pain sensitivity and the relation to clinical outcome: a mechanistic trial using a shoulder pain model Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Coronado Rogelio A. Bialosky Joel E. Bishop Mark D. Riley Joseph L. 3rd Robinson Michael E. Michener Lori A. George Steven Z. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 4 2015
45 4 252 264 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2015.5745 10.2519/jospt.2015.5745 25739842
Spinal manipulation frequency and dosage effects on clinical and physiological outcomes: a scoping review Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Pasquier Mégane Daneau Catherine Marchand Andrée-Anne Lardon Arnaud Descarreaux Martin Springer Science and Business Media LLC 22 5 2019
27 1 23 2045-709X 10.1186/s12998-019-0244-0 10.1186/s12998-019-0244-0 31139346
Acute effects of static and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on muscle strength and power output J Athl Train Marek S.M. Cramer J.T. Fincher A.L.. 2005
40 2 94 103 15970955
Quantitative human physiology: an introduction Feher J.J. Academic press 2017

Dynamic response of human muscle spindle afferents to stretch Journal of Neurophysiology Edin B. B. Vallbo A. B. American Physiological Society 1 6 1990
63 6 1297 1306 0022-3077 10.1152/jn.1990.63.6.1297 10.1152/jn.1990.63.6.1297
Functional properties of human muscle spindles Journal of Neurophysiology Macefield Vaughan G. Knellwolf Thomas P. American Physiological Society 1 8 2018
120 2 452 467 0022-3077 10.1152/jn.00071.2018 10.1152/jn.00071.2018
Altered reflex sensitivity after repeated and prolonged passive muscle stretching J Appl Physiol Avela J. Kyröläinen H. Komi P.V. 1999
86 4 1283 1291 10194214
The immediate effects of thoracic spine and rib manipulation on subjects with primary complaints of shoulder pain Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Strunce Joseph B. Walker Michael J. Boyles Robert E. Young Brian A. Informa UK Limited 12 2009
17 4 230 236 1066-9817 10.1179/106698109791352102 10.1179/106698109791352102 20140154
Short-term effects of thoracic manipulation on lower trapezius muscle strength Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Cleland Joshua Selleck Ben Stowell Thomas Browne Lindsey Alberini Steve St. Cyr Heather Caron Thomas Informa UK Limited 4 2004
12 2 82 90 1066-9817 10.1179/106698104790825284 10.1179/106698104790825284
Scapular kinematics pre–and post–thoracic thrust manipulation in individuals with and without shoulder impingement symptoms: a randomized controlled study Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Haik Melina N. Alburquerque-Sendín Francisco Silva Caroline Z. Siqueira-Junior Aristides L. Ribeiro Ivana L. Camargo Paula R. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 7 2014
44 7 475 487 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2014.4760 10.2519/jospt.2014.4760 24853923
Short-term effects of thoracic spinal manipulations and message conveyed by clinicians to patients with musculoskeletal shoulder symptoms: a randomized clinical trial Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Riley Sean P. Cote Mark P. Leger Robin R. Swanson Brian T. Tafuto Vincent Sizer Phillip S. Brismée Jean-Michel Informa UK Limited 2015
23 1 3 11 1066-9817 10.1179/2042618613y.0000000066 10.1179/2042618613y.0000000066 26309376
Effectiveness of cervicothoracic and thoracic manual physical therapy in managing upper quarter disorders – a systematic review Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Schenk Ronald Donaldson Megan Parent-Nichols Jennifer Wilhelm Mark Wright Alexis Cleland Joshua A. Informa UK Limited 11 7 2021
30 1 1 10 1066-9817 10.1080/10669817.2021.1923313 10.1080/10669817.2021.1923313 34252013
The effect of thoracic spine mobilization on lower trapezius strength testing Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Liebler Ethan John Tufano-Coors Lisa Douris Peter Makofsky Howard W. McKenna Raymond Michels Christopher Rattray Shawlyn Informa UK Limited 10 2001
9 4 207 212 1066-9817 10.1179/106698101790819761 10.1179/106698101790819761
