Skip to main content
. 2012 Mar;56(1):49–57.

Table 3.

Reference Objective Trial Design /50 Patients/Conditions Interventions Main Outcome Measures Follow-Up Period Main Results/Conclusions
Gemmell et al. 2009

  1. To examine the effects of ischemic compression vs. Activator on trigger points

 Randomized Clinical Trial 41 52 volunteer subjects w/ tender, active trigger points of trapezius muscle

  1. Ischemic compression

  2. Activator

  1. PGIC

  2. NRS

  3. PPA (Algometer)

 10 minutes

  • – Both interventions showed improvement in all outcome measures, but no statistical significance b/w groups
Yurkiw & Mior 1996

  1. Comparison of Diversified SMT & Activator on ROM & Pain

 Randomized Comparative Clinical Trial 35 14 established patients w/ subacute unilateral neck pain

  1. Diversified SMT

  2. Activator

  1. C-ROM Goniomentric (inclinometer) device

  2. VAS

 Immediate

  • – No statistical significance b/w interventions

  • – Both interventions showed improvement in all outcome measures, but no statistical significance b/w groups
DeVocht et al. 2003

  1. To evaluate the effectiveness of Activator treatment on TMD

 Prospective Case Series 32 8 patients w/ chronic articular TMD

  1. Activator

  1. VAS

  2. Maximum active mouth opening in pain free range (ROM)

 None

  • – Signs & symptoms of patient TMD improved w/ course of Activator treatment
Osterbauer et al. 1993

  1. To evaluate diagnostic and biomechanical assessment of SIJS

  2. To assess treatment value of Activator on SIJS

 Descriptive Case Series 32 10 patients w/ chronic sacroiliac joint syndrome

  1. Activator

  1. VAS

  2. ODI

  3. Lumbosacral provocation tests

  4. Gait analysis

  5. Postural Sway

 1 year

  • – Activator proved beneficial in treatment of chronic SIJS
Wood et al. 2001

  1. Comparison of Diversified SMT & Activator on cervical spine dysfunction

 Randomized Clinical Trial 32 30 patients w/ subacute neck pain

  1. Diversified SMT

  2. Activator

  1. NDI

  2. NPRS

  3. McGill Pain Questionnaire

    ROM w/ Goniometer

 1 month

  • – No statistical significance b/w interventions

  • – Both interventions showed beneficial effects in reducing pain & disability while increasing ROM
Gemmell et al. 1995 To examine the immediate effects of Activator vs. Meric technique on acute LBP Randomized Control Trial 28 30 established patients w/ acute LBP

  1. Activator

  2. Meric

  1. VAS

 Immediate

  • – Both interventions showed improvement in all outcome measures, but no statistical significance b/w groups
Schneider et al. 2010

  1. Examine treatment effect on NPRS and ODI when comparing Activator and manual SMT (Low back)

 Non-Randomized Cohort 28 92 established patients from 3 chiropractic clinics w/ 3 month history of low back pain

  1. Activator

  2. Diversified Side Posture

  1. NPRS

  2. ODI

 None

  • – Study found neither intervention superior to the other, while providing profession with valuable information on the influence of treatment expectation
Shearar et al. 2001

  1. Comparison of Diversified SMT & Activator of SIJS

 Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial 28 60 subjects w/ a previous history of SIJS

  1. Diversified SMT

  2. Activator

  1. NRS-101

  2. Revised ODI

  3. Orthopedic rating scales

  4. Algometer

 None

  • – No statistical significance b/w interventions

  • – Both interventions showed improvement in all outcome measures, but no statistical significance b/w groups