The Activator Method is one of the most widely researched chiropractic techniques and the only instrument adjusting technique with clinical trials to support its efficacy. The following list of clinical trials demonstrate that there is sufficient published evidence that use of the Activator adjusting instrument results in therapeutic benefits equivalent to manual-thrust and/or diversified chiropractic manipulation.
Main Results/Conclusions: Systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly in the active treatment condition. No significant changes occurred in the placebo and control conditions. Anxiety significantly decreased in the active and control conditions.
Main Results/Conclusions: Activator proved beneficial in treatment of chronic Sacro-Iliac Joint Syndrome (SIJS); average Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores diminished from 28 to 13%.
Main Results/Conclusions: Both interventions showed improvement in all outcome measures, but no statistical significance between groups.
Main Results/Conclusions: No statistical significance between interventions. Both interventions showed immediate improvement in all outcome measures.
Main Results/Conclusions: Activator-assisted spinal manipulation significantly decreased the intensity of emotional arousal reported by phobic subjects.
Main Results/Conclusions: No statistical significance between interventions. Both Activator and manual manipulation showed beneficial effects in reducing pain and disability while increasing range of motion.
Main Results/Conclusions: Signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders improved with the course of Activator Methods treatment.
Main Results/Conclusions: No statistical significance between interventions. Both interventions showed immediate improvement in all outcome measures.
Main Results/Conclusions: Activator trigger point therapy appeared to be more effective than myofascial band therapy or sham ultrasound in treating patients with non-specific neck pain and upper trapezius trigger points.
Main Results/Conclusions: Both interventions showed improvement in all outcome measures, but no statistical significance between groups
Main Results/Conclusions: Before treatment, the cutaneous temperature (CT) was significantly different between the ipsilateral and the contralateral sides for all subgroups consistent with a positive L4/L5 isolation test. At 10 minutes after intervention, CT increased significantly for the treatment group but not for the sham and control groups. Furthermore, after manipulation using the Activator with a thrust respecting the standard loading principle of the instrument, it produced a secondary cooling at 5 minutes followed by a rewarming at 10 minutes consistent with a neurophysiological response.
Main Results/Conclusions: No statistical significance between interventions except for control group. Both interventions showed similar modulation of the HRV.
Main Results/Conclusions: There were no significant differences between the groups at any of the follow up points. All groups exhibited long-term improvement without one being superior to the other.
Main Results/Conclusions: This study found neither intervention superior to the other, while providing the chiropractic profession with valuable information on the influence of treatment expectation.
Main Results/Conclusions: A total of 9 chiropractic lower back manipulations with the Activator caused the mediators of inflammation to present a normalization response in individuals suffering from chronic low back pain.
Main Results/Conclusions: The application of Activator instrument resulted in an immediate and widespread hypoalgesic effect with local muscle relaxation in asymptomatic participants.
Main Results/Conclusions: The Paraspinal Cutaneous Temperature (PCT) readings for subjects with chronic low back pain were lower than the asymptomatic, nontreatment group. The PCT temperature of the treatment group normalized after nine (9) treatments.
Main Results/Conclusions: 721 potential participants were screened, 80 enrolled, and 53 completed the 6 month assessment. In the end, the logistics were found to be manageable. NOTE: This pilot study was funded by a NCCAM TMD study grant (2008) and was a necessary step in preparation for a larger Randomized Control Trial that will provide clinicians with information helpful when discussing treatment options for those who suffer with TMD.
Main Results/Conclusions: This study found that manual-thrust manipulation (MTM) provided slightly greater short-term (at 4 weeks) reductions in self-reported disability and pain scores compared with mechanical-assisted manipulation (Activator) or usual medical care (UMC); Activator was more effective for pain reduction than usual medical care in the first two-weeks. In addition, the benefit of MTM seen at end-of-intervention was no longer statistically significant at 3 or 6 months. All interventions seem similar in effect; they lead to decreased pain and disability.
Main Results/Conclusions: Specific thoracic spinal manipulations affected three measures: blood pressure, pulse rate, and changes in hypertension classification only in the active treatment group. Activator instrument’s utility for sham settings was supported for future efficacy studies.
Main Results/Conclusions: Dynamic radiographs and the Oswestry index appear to be sensitive enough to detect a strong effect size after a 9-treatment course of therapy. In addition, a significant correlation was found between pre- and post-treatment measurements of the Oswestry index and dynamic radiographs which could help validate the necessity of continued care.
Main Results/Conclusions: This study demonstrates that a single cervical manipulation is capable of producing both immediate and short-term benefits for mechanical neck pain. The study also may demonstrate that not all manipulative techniques have the same effect. The results reported in this study are consistent with the hypothesis that the biomechanical characteristics of different spinal manipulation techniques may be responsible for varying clinical effects. However, the results are not definitive, and further research investigating the nature of these changes is warranted.
Main Results/Conclusions: The major effect of applying an MAI to the level of C5 of the spine in referred shoulder pain is improved shoulder strength for internal rotation in this randomized double-blinded clinical trial.
The following systematic review of the literature demonstrates that there is sufficient published evidence that use of the Activator adjusting instrument results in therapeutic benefits equivalent to manual-thrust and/or diversified chiropractic manipulation.
Clinical effectiveness of the activator adjusting instrument in the management of musculo-skeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature. Huggins T, Boras AL, Gleberzon BJ, Popescu M, Bahry LA. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2012 Mar;56(1):49-57.
Main Results/Conclusions: “This systematic review of 8 clinical trials involving the use of the AAI (Activator) found reported benefits to patients with spinal pain and trigger points, although these results were not statistically significantly different when compared to the use of HVLA manual manipulation or trigger point therapy.”
