What the Research Says About Chiropractic

Let's Talk Facts, Not Opinions


Modern Chiropractic care is no longer guided by tradition, opinion, or anecdote. It is guided by a growing body of high-quality research examining how, why, and when spinal adjustments influence human health.


Two factors consistently stand out in the research as critical components of getting results:


Speed of the adjustment

Specificity of the adjustment


These are not preferences or stylistic choices. They are foundational to how Chiropractic works.

Why Speed Matters in a Chiropractic Adjustment

A Chiropractic adjustment is classified as a high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) movement.

This means:

The movement is fast

The range of movement is small

Force is controlled, not aggressive


Research shows that the speed of the thrust is essential because it determines the neurological response.

Rapid movement of a spinal joint causes:


  • Rapid lengthening of surrounding muscles
  • Activation of muscle spindle receptors
  • A strong afferent signal sent to the brain
  • Changes in central nervous system processing


This neurological response does not occur with slow mobilisation or stretching techniques (Henderson, 2012).


In simple terms:


Slow movement affects tissues

Fast and precise movements affect the brain


This is one of the key reasons Chiropractic adjustments can influence not only pain but also movement, coordination, mood, overall function and much more because adjustments change the function of our nervous system which controls our body.

Speed Is About Neurology, Not Force


A common misconception is that faster adjustments are more forceful. The opposite is true.

HVLA adjustments rely on:


  • Speed rather than pressure
  • Timing rather than strength
  • Precision rather than repetition



Studies comparing thrust manipulation to non-thrust mobilisation consistently show superior outcomes with thrust techniques, even when force is lower (Hellman et al., 2007; Schneider et al., 2015).


This is why Chiropractic is distinct from massage, stretching, or general mobilisation.

Why Specificity Matters Most


Equally important to speed is specificity.

Specificity refers to:


  • Identifying which spinal segments are restricted
  • Applying the adjustment only to those segments
  • Avoiding unnecessary or generalised manipulation


Research demonstrates that adjusting restricted (subluxated) segments produces significantly greater neurological changes than adjusting non-restricted segments (Niazi et al., 2024).


This confirms what Chiropractors have observed clinically for decades:


  • Not all joints need adjusting
  • Not all movement produces benefit
  • Accuracy matters

Specific Adjustments Create Measurable Brain Changes


Recent neuroimaging and neurophysiological studies show that specific Chiropractic adjustments 
lead to changes in brain function, including:


  • Improved sensorimotor integration
  • Changes in EEG patterns
  • Altered activity in pain-processing regions of the brain
  • Improved central processing efficiency


One randomized controlled trial demonstrated measurable changes in brain metabolites and functional disability after a structured course of Chiropractic care, highlighting that these effects are not placebo-based (Didehdar et al., 2020).

Why “General Manipulation” Is Not the Same


Many research papers group together:

  • Mobilisation
  • General manipulation
  • Thrust and non-thrust techniques

This creates confusion.


Systematic reviews have shown that when specific HVLA adjustments are separated from general mobilisation, the outcomes are significantly stronger (Bronfort et al., 2008; Hellman et al., 2007).


In other words:

  • Not all “spinal manipulation” or “SMT” is equal
  • Chiropractic adjustments are not interchangeable with slow mobilisation
  • Dose, speed, and specificity change outcomes


Dose Response: How Often Care Is Needed


Research consistently shows a dose-response relationship with Chiropractic care.

Higher-quality trials demonstrate that:


  • Multiple visits over several weeks produce better outcomes than minimal care
  • Approximately 12 visits over 4–6 weeks is associated with significant
    improvement in pain and function for chronic low back pain (Haas et al., 2014)


Ongoing care supports maintenance of improvements and reduces recurrence (Senna & Machaly, 2011)

This aligns with how all biological systems adapt:


  • Movement restores function
  • Repetition reinforces change
  • Consistency matters


Why This Matters for Patients


Understanding the science behind Chiropractic helps patients make informed decisions.

It explains:


  • Why Chiropractic is more than symptom relief
  • Why assessments and re-examinations are essential
  • Why care is delivered as a process, not a one-off event
  • Why results improve when care is delivered correctly


At Adjusting to Health, these principles form the foundation of our Health Blueprint™ Process.

The Takeaway


The research is clear:



  • Speed determines neurological response
  • Specificity determines effectiveness
  • Structure and movement influence brain function
  • Chiropractic works best when delivered deliberately, not generically


This is why modern, evidence-informed Chiropractic looks very different from outdated stereotypes and why outcomes improve when care is done properly.

References


Bronfort, G. et al. (2008). Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization. The Spine Journal, 8(1), pp.213–225.


Didehdar, K. et al. (2020). The effect of spinal manipulation on brain neurometabolites in chronic non-specific low back pain patients: A randomized controlled trial. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 189, pp.543–550.


Haas, M. et al. (2014). Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic low back pain. The Spine Journal, 14(7), pp.1106–1116.


Hellman, J. et al. (2007). Thrust versus non-thrust spinal manipulation: A systematic review. The Spine Journal, 7(4), pp.453–460.


Henderson, C.N. (2012). The basis of spinal manipulation: Chiropractic perspective of indications. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 22(5), pp.632–642.


Niazi, I.K. et al. (2024). Neuroplastic responses of chiropractic care: Broad impacts on pain, mood, and sensorimotor integration. Scientific Reports, 14, 1159.


Schneider, M. et al. (2015). Comparison of spinal manipulation methods and usual medical care for low back pain: A randomized clinical trial. Spine, 40(4), pp.209–217.


Senna, M.K. and Machaly, S.A. (2011). Does maintained spinal manipulation therapy for chronic low back pain result in better long-term outcome? Spine, 36(18), pp.1427–1437