Study	Reason for exclusion
Allan 2003	Intervention: manipulation received in all arms
Allison 2002	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Bablis 2008	Design: quasi‐RCT sequential allocation cohort
Björklund 2012	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Bonk 2000	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Borman 2008	Intervention: mechanical traction
Borusiak 2010	Population: study included only children
Bosmans 2011	Intervention: behavioural exercise programme vs manual therapy
Boyles 2010	Design: this was a secondary analysis in which participants were not randomly assigned
Briem 2007	Intervention: intervention technique was not mobilisation nor manipulation
Brodin 1985	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Brønfort 2001	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Chiu 2011	Intervention: participants received mechanical traction using the Tru‐Trac series 92B machine under the supervision of a physiotherapist
Cleland 2007a	Design: not an RCT
Cleland 2009	Intervention: aimed at therapist, not at study population
Cleland 2010	Intervention: manipulation and exercise
Conforti 2013	Intervention: multi‐modal
Cross 2011	Design: article is a systematic review, not an RCT
Cunha 2008	Intervention: both groups underwent manual therapy
De Hertogh 2009	Population: tenstion ‐type headache and migraine
Donkin 2002	Population: tension‐type headache
Dostal 1997	Intervention: manipulation was used in combination with ibuprofen as a control
Durianova 1977	Outcome: outcome measure used was not clearly stated
Dziedzic 2005	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Evans 2012	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Fang 2010	Population: cervical vertigo
Fernandez 2004 JWR	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Fernandez 2008	Population: asymptomatic individuals
Fitz‐Ritson 1994	Population: unsure, sample not adequately described (query whiplash‐associated neck disorder)
Gemmell 2008	Intervention: ischaemic compression and trigger point pressure release on neck pain
Giebel 1997	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Giles 2003	Population: unable to split spinal data. Attempts to contact study author resulted in no response
Goldie 1970	Intervention: manual therapy in active and control groups
Grunnet‐Nilsson 1999	Population: did not meet review inclusion criteria
Gustavsson 2006	Intervention: Control treatment was individualised care (acupuncture, massage, mobs, hot pack, TENS, US, exercise), and we were not able to elucidate the exact treatment mix for the "treat as usual" group
Haas 2003	Design: phase IV diagnostic trial, not an efficacy trial
Hakkinen 2007	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Hemmila 2005	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Hodgson 2006	Intervention: did not consist of mobilisation nor manipulation
Hong 2005	Outcome: included only measures of blood flow
Hoving 2002	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Hurwitz 2005	Outcomes: excluded on basis of outcomes
Hurwitz 2006	Outcome: psychosocial outcome measure
Jahanshahi 1991	Population: no sample with neck disorder meeting inclusion criteria (torticollis)
Jensen 1990	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Jensen 1995	Intervention: no manual therapy intervention
Jensen 2009	Design: observational study
Jiang 2012	Intervention: manual/mechanical traction
Jing 2006	Intervention: Shiatsu type of manipulation
Jordan 1998	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Jull 2001	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Jull 2007	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Karlberg 1996	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Khoury 2002	Intervention: co‐intervention inconsistencies Design: quasi‐RCT
Ko 2010	Intervention: Control group performed craniocervical flexor exercises Design: method of randomisation unclear
Koes 1992	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Kogstad 1978	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Kongsted 2007	Interventions: no manual therapy
Krugh 2010	Population: mixed headache
Langevin 2012	Intervention: Mobilisations were combined with exercises
Leboeuf 1987	Population: no sample with neck disorder meeting inclusion criteria (repetitive strain injury of upper limb)
Lee 2010	Design: case study (not an RCT)
Levoska 1993	Intervention: manual therapy in treatment and control groups
Li 2006	Population: canal spinal stenosis unclear; long tract signs Intervention: local point traction manipulation
Lindell 2008	Population: unable to split data into neck pain‐only group
Linton 2001	Population: unable to split data into neck pain‐only group
Maduro de Camargo 2011	Outcome: PPT was not an outcome of interest in this review
Maiers 2007	Intervention: manipulation plus exercise
Maiers 2013	Population: seniors
Manca 2007	Intervention: no manual therapy included
Mansilla‐Feragut 2009	Outcome was PPT and mouth ROM
Mansilla‐Ferragud 2008	Outcome: PPT was not an outcome of interest in this review
McClatchie 2009	Population: asymptomatic cervical spine; outcomes: no outcomes measuring cervical spine or related disability
McKinney 1989	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
McReynolds 2005	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Mealy 1986	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Metcalfe 2006	Outcome: Muscle strength measure was not part of our inclusion outcomes
Mezaki 1995	Design: unsure RCT Population: no participants with neck disorder meeting inclusion criteria (spasmodic torticollis)
Moodley 2002	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Murphy 2010	Intervention: multi‐modal approach including myofascial trigger point and mobilisation techniques
Nagrale 2010	Intervention: integrated neuromuscular inhibition technique (INIT)
Nee 2012	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Nordemar 1981	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Palmgren 2006	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Persson 2001	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Pool 2006	Intervention: behavioural exercise programme
Pool 2010	Intervention: behavioural exercise programme
Provinciali 1996	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Reginiussen 2000	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Reid 2014	Intervention: mobilisation plus exercise
Rubinstein 2007	Design: not a randomised controlled trial
Rupert 2002	Population: rat study; not human study
Schenk 1994	Population: no sample with neck disorder meeting inclusion criteria (normal cervical spine)
Scholten‐Peeters 2003	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Schwerla 2008	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Skargren 1998	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Snyder 1996	Population: Study population did not meet inclusion criteria for the review
Sterling 2001	Design: a mechanistic trial
Strunk 2009	Design: not an RCT but a single‐group study
Tuchin 2000	Population: individuals with migraine
Vasseljen 1995	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Vernon 1990	Outcome: PPT was not an outcome of interest in this review
Walker 2013	Intervention: multi‐modal Outcome: adverse effects
Whittingham 2001	Outcome: range of motion data only; study does not meet our inclusion criteria
Williams 2003	Outcome: outcomes for neck and back pain combined
Yin 2006	Intervention: injection‐type manipulation
Ylinen 2003	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Ylinen 2007	Intervention: multi‐modal approach
Young 2009	Intervention: traction + MT/Ex vs MT/Ex
Zaproudina 2007	Intervention: multi‐modal approach ‐ traditional bone setting ‐ mobilisation and manipulation
Zhi 2008	Intervention: acupuncture