| Course | INHE 3002 Survey of Complementary Health Approaches |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Comparison table |
| Length | About 540 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Integrative Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for INHE 3002 Week 9
Two Hands-On Approaches, One Set of Columns: A Comparison Table for Massage and Spinal Manipulation in Chronic Low Back Pain, Filled From Equivalent Sources
Student Name
Walden University
INHE 3002: Survey of Complementary Health Approaches
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Two Hands-On Approaches, One Set of Columns: A Comparison Table for Massage and Spinal Manipulation in Chronic Low Back Pain, Filled From Equivalent Sources
Why These Two
Massage and spinal manipulation are both physical approaches, both delivered by hand, and both widely used for chronic low back pain. That makes them a fair pair: the comparison can hold the condition constant and vary only the approach. Each column below is filled from an equivalent source for both approaches, so that differences in the table reflect differences in the approaches and not in where the information came from.
The Table
Table 1
Massage and spinal manipulation compared on the same dimensions
| Dimension | Massage | Spinal manipulation | Source type for both | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What a session involves | Hands-on stroking and kneading of muscles, 30 to 60 minutes | Short, quick thrusts or slower mobilization of spinal joints, often within a 15 to 30 minute visit | Federal research center summaries | |
| Who usually delivers it | Licensed massage therapist in most states | Chiropractor; also some osteopathic physicians and physical therapists | State licensing patterns | |
| Systematic review used | Cochrane review, 25 trials, 3,096 participants | Systematic review and meta-analysis, 47 trials, 9,211 participants | Systematic reviews of randomized trials | |
| Review's quality rating of the evidence | Low to very low | Moderate for comparisons with recommended therapies | Each review's own rating | |
| Review's conclusion | Authors doubtful of benefit beyond brief pain relief | Comparable to standard recommended care, slightly better function | Each review's own wording | |
| Reported harms | Few, mostly minor and short-lived | Mostly minor and short-lived musculoskeletal; reporting often unsystematic | Each review's harm findings | |
Session details and practitioner types are typical patterns, not legal definitions; the evidence rows quote or closely paraphrase each review.
Every row asks the same question of both approaches. Where a row could only be filled for one, it was removed rather than left lopsided.
Where the Comparison Could Quietly Break
The evidence rows are where comparisons usually tilt. Spinal manipulation has nearly twice as many trials and three times as many participants behind it as massage, and a reader could take that volume as a sign that it works better. Volume and effectiveness are different things. The spinal manipulation review rated its main comparison as moderate quality and found effects similar to other recommended therapies, not superior ones (Rubinstein et al., 2019). The massage review rated its evidence low to very low, mainly because of risk of bias and imprecision, and expressed very little confidence in effectiveness (Furlan et al., 2015). The fair reading is that spinal manipulation's evidence is more certain, not that its effect is larger.
What the Table Cannot Show
The two reviews were published four years apart and used different methods for grading evidence, which the "source type" column notes but cannot fully equalize. Neither review compared massage with spinal manipulation directly in the same trials, so the table sets two separate bodies of evidence side by side rather than reporting a head-to-head result. The federal research center's massage summary likewise presents its back pain evidence as modest and short-term (National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health [NCCIH], 2024). A reader choosing between them would also weigh cost, access and preference, none of which the evidence rows address.
References
Furlan, A. D., Giraldo, M., Baskwill, A., Irvin, E., & Imamura, M. (2015). Massage for low-back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015(9), Article CD001929. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001929.pub3
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. (2024). Massage therapy: What you need to know. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/massage-therapy-what-you-need-to-know
Rubinstein, S. M., de Zoete, A., van Middelkoop, M., Assendelft, W. J. J., de Boer, M. R., & van Tulder, M. W. (2019). Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 364, Article l689. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l689
INHE 3002 Week 9 instructions, in plain terms
Comparison table assignments ask students to compare two complementary approaches across a fixed set of dimensions. Prompts usually require a table, a short narrative and sources for each cell, and many specify dimensions such as practice, practitioners, regulation, evidence and safety. Instructors look for parallel treatment: the same question asked of both approaches, answered from the same kind of source. Tables that use a systematic review for one approach and a website for the other, or that let the approach with more studies appear more effective because of volume, usually receive less credit than tables built on equivalent sources. Some prompts specify the dimensions; others let students choose them, as long as each applies to both approaches.
Inside the INHE 3002 Week 9 example
The table section is preceded by a short explanation of why these two approaches were paired and why the condition is held constant. The table compares six dimensions and names the source type used for both in a fourth column, with a note distinguishing typical patterns from legal definitions. A sentence explains that unbalanced rows were removed. A section explains where comparisons break, separating certainty of evidence from size of effect with figures from both reviews. A final section states what the table cannot show, including different review methods and the absence of head-to-head trials. Trial and participant counts come directly from each review, and quality ratings use each review's own grading words. A fourth column names the source type for both approaches.
INHE 3002 Week 9 rubric: what earns full marks
Instructors generally reward parallel structure, and a table whose every row asks the same question of both approaches secures the main share. Naming the source type for each row earns credit for transparency. The analysis of the evidence row tends to be where top-scoring tables differ from the rest, since separating certainty from effect size shows real understanding. Removing rows that could not be filled evenly shows discipline. Owning the table's blind spots, such as the absence of head-to-head trials, completes the fairness check. Accurate citations for both reviews and the federal research center's summary support it. Using each review's own grading words in the table avoids imposing a single scale the reviews did not share.
Common INHE 3002 Week 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Choose two approaches used for the same condition so the comparison is fair. Decide on your dimensions before you research, and use the same type of source for both approaches in each row. Drop any row you can fill for only one. In the evidence row, report each review's quality rating and conclusion separately from its size. Do not let more studies stand in for a bigger effect. Say what your table cannot show. If your table keeps coming out unbalanced, we can construct a sample table for your pair. Copy trial counts and quality ratings exactly from each review.
Get a INHE 3002 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Two things shape this sample: the pairing your section chose, and the dimensions it demands. Include both with the prompt and rubric, since the choice of rows drives every sourcing decision in the table. A custom table and its interpretation come back inside 24-48h, first one free. Guessing at the rows produces a grid your grader never asked for.
More INHE 3002 papers and BS in Integrative Health samples
- INHE 3002 Week 1: Classification Post
- INHE 3002 Week 2: Category Overview
- INHE 3002 Week 3: Reiki Profile
- INHE 3002 Week 4: Evidence Summary
- INHE 3002 Week 5: Claim Audit
- INHE 3002 Week 6: Verb Strength Post
- INHE 3002 Week 7: Kava Safety Brief
- INHE 3002 Week 8: Regulation Brief
- INHE 3002 Week 10: Source Appraisal
- INHE 3002 Week 11: Calibration Reflection
- INHE 3001 Week 9: Policy Memo
- INHE 2320 Week 9: Supplement Claim Check Post
- INHE 2002 Week 9: Coaching Plan
- INHE 1005 Week 9: Whole Person Concept Brief
INHE 3002 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free INHE 3002 Week 9 sample paper?
The massage and spinal manipulation comparison table appears in full on this page.
Why compare these two approaches?
Both are hands-on physical approaches widely used for chronic low back pain.
Which approach has more evidence?
Spinal manipulation, with 47 trials against 25 for massage.
Does more evidence mean a larger effect?
No. Manipulation's effect was similar to other recommended therapies, not larger.
Were the two compared directly?
No. The reviews looked at each approach separately, so the table sets them side by side.