No difference in pressure pain threshold and temporal summation after lumbar spinal manipulation compared to sham: A randomised controlled trial in adults with low back pain

One spinal manipulation session reduces local pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability in individuals with chronic low back pain: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. However, the effects of spinal manipulation have contradictory findings compared to placebo intervention. Therefore, this study investigated the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and postural stability in people with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Second, we investigated the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pain intensity and the interference of the participant beliefs about which treatment was received in the PPT, postural stability, and pain intensity.

METHODS

A two-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was performed. Eighty participants with nonspecific cLPB and a minimum score of 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale received one session of lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40) or simulated lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40). Primary outcomes were local and remote PPTs and postural stability. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and participant's perceived treatment allocation. Between-group mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated the treatment effect. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to assess whether beliefs about which treatment was received influenced the outcomes.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (10.5) years, and 50 (62.5%) were women. Right L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.55 (95%CI 0.19 to 0.90)], left L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.45 (95%CI 0.13 to 0.76)], right L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.41 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.78)], left L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.57 (95%CI 0.15 to 0.99)], left DT [between-group mean difference = 0.35 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.65)], and right LE [between-group mean difference = 0.34 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.60)] showed superior treatment effect in the spinal manipulation group than sham. Neither intervention altered postural stability. Self-reported pain intensity showed clinically significant decreases in both groups after the intervention. A higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group achieved more than two points of pain relief (spinal manipulation = 90%; sham = 60%). The participants' perceived treatment allocation did not affect the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

One spinal manipulation session reduces lumbar pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability compared to a sham session in individuals with cLPB. Self-reported pain intensity lowered in both groups and a higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group reached clinically significant pain relief. The participant's belief in receiving the manipulation did not appear to have influenced the outcomes since the adjusted model revealed similar findings.

Reduction of Chronic Primary Low Back Pain by Spinal Manipulative Therapy is Accompanied by Decreases in Segmental Mechanical Hyperalgesia and Pain Catastrophizing: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Dual-blind Mixed Experimental Trial

Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) refers to low back pain that persists over 3 months, that cannot be explained by another chronic condition, and that is associated with emotional distress and disability. Previous studies have shown that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is effective in relieving CPLBP, but the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. This randomized placebo-controlled dual-blind mixed experimental trial (NCT05162924) aimed to investigate the efficacy of SMT to improve CPLBP and its underlying mechanisms. Ninety-eight individuals with CPLBP and 49 controls were recruited. Individuals with CPLBP received SMT (n = 49) or a control intervention (n = 49), 12 times over 4 weeks. The primary outcomes were CPLBP intensity (0-100 on a numerical rating scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes included pressure pain thresholds in 4 body regions, pain catastrophizing, Central Sensitization Inventory, depressive symptoms, and anxiety scores. Individuals with CPLBP showed widespread mechanical hyperalgesia (P < .001) and higher scores for all questionnaires (P < .001). SMT reduced pain intensity compared with the control intervention (mean difference: -11.7 [95% confidence interval, -11.0 to -12.5], P = .01), but not disability (P = .5). Similar mild to moderate adverse events were reported in both groups. Mechanical hyperalgesia at the manipulated segment was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05). Pain catastrophizing was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05), but this effect was not significant after accounting for changes in clinical pain. Although the reduction of segmental mechanical hyperalgesia likely contributes to the clinical benefits of SMT, the role of pain catastrophizing remains to be clarified. PERSPECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial found that 12 sessions of SMT yield greater relief of CPLBP than a control intervention. These clinical effects were independent of expectations, and accompanied by an attenuation of hyperalgesia in the targeted segment and a modulation of pain catastrophizing.

Current Concept of Quantitative Sensory Testing and Pressure Pain Threshold in Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain

In recent years, several published articles have shown that quantitative sensory testing (QST) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) are useful in the analysis of neck/shoulder and low back pain. A valid reference for normal PPT values might be helpful for the clinical diagnosis of abnormal tenderness or muscle pain. However, there have been no reliable references for PPT values of neck/shoulder and back pain because the data vary depending on the devices used, the measurement units, and the area examined. In this article, we review previously published PPT articles on neck/shoulder and low back pain, discuss the measurement properties of PPT, and summarize the current data on PPT values in patients with chronic pain and healthy volunteers. We also reveal previous issues related to PPT evaluation and discuss the future of PPT assessment for widespread use in general clinics. We outline QST and PPT measurements and what kinds of perceptions can be quantified with the PPT. Ninety-seven articles were selected in the present review, in which we focused on the normative values and abnormal values in volunteers/patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. We conducted our search of articles using PubMed and Medline, a medical database. We used a combination of “Pressure pain threshold” and “Neck shoulder pain” or “Back pain” as search terms and searched articles from 1 January 2000 to 1 June 2022. From the data extracted, we revealed the PPT values in healthy control subjects and patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. This database could serve as a benchmark for future research with pressure algometers for the wide use of PPT assessment in clinics.

Endogenous Pain Modulation in Response to a Single Session of Percutaneous Electrolysis in Healthy Population: A Double-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial

The purpose of this double-blinded randomized controlled trial was to investigate whether percutaneous electrolysis (PE) is able to activate endogenous pain modulation and whether its effects are dependent on the dosage of the galvanic current. A total of 54 asymptomatic subjects aged 18–40 years were randomized into three groups, receiving a single ultrasound-guided PE intervention that consisted of a needle insertion on the lateral epicondyle tendon: sham (without electrical current), low-intensity (0.3 mA, 90 s), and high-intensity (three pulses of 3 mA, 3 s). Widespread pressure pain thresholds (PPT), conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and temporal summation (TS) were assessed in the elbow, shoulder, and leg before and immediately after the intervention. Both high and low intensity PE protocols produced an increase in PPT in the shoulder compared to sham (p = 0.031 and p = 0.027). The sham group presented a significant decrease in the CPM (p = 0.006), and this finding was prevented in PE groups (p = 0.043 and p = 0.025). In addition, high-intensity PE decreased TS respect to sham in the elbow (p = 0.047) and both PE groups reduced TS in the leg (p = 0.036 and p = 0.020) without significant differences compared to sham (p = 0.512). Consequently, a single PE intervention modulated pain processing in local and widespread areas, implying an endogenous pain modulation. The pain processing effect was independent of the dosage administrated.

Pressure pain thresholds in a real-world chiropractic setting: topography, changes after treatment, and clinical relevance?

BACKGROUND

Changes in pain sensitivity are a commonly suggested mechanism for the clinical effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Most research has examined pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and has primarily been conducted in controlled experimental setups and on asymptomatic populations. Many important factors are likely to differ between research and clinical settings, which may affect PPT changes following SMT. Therefore, we planned to investigate PPT before and after clinical chiropractic care and investigate relationships with various potentially clinically-relevant factors.

METHODS

We recruited participants from four Danish chiropractic clinics between May and August 2021. A total of 129 participants (72% of the invited) were included. We measured PPT at eight pre-determined test sites (six spinal and two extra-spinal) immediately before (pre-session) and immediately after (post-session) the chiropractic consultation. We used regression analyses to investigate PPT changes, including the following factors: (i) vertebral distance to the nearest SMT site, (ii) rapid clinical response, (iii) baseline PPT, (iv) number of SMTs performed, (v) at the region of clinical pain compared to other regions, and (vi) if other non-SMT treatment was provided. We also performed topographic mapping of pre-session PPTs.

RESULTS

After the consultation, there was a non-significant mean increase in PPT of 0.14 kg (95% CIs = - 0.01 to 0.29 kg). No significant associations were found with the distance between the PPT test site and nearest SMT site, the clinical response of participants to treatment, the pre-session PPT, the total number of SMTs performed, or the region/s of clinical pain. A small increase was observed if myofascial treatment was also provided. Topographic mapping found greater pre-session PPTs in a caudal direction, not affected by the region/s of clinical pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of real-world chiropractic patients failed to demonstrate a substantial local or generalized increase in PPT following a clinical encounter that included SMT. This runs counter to prior laboratory research and questions the generalizability of highly experimental setups investigating the effect of SMT on PPT to clinical practice.

Segmental Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation Does not Reduce Pain Amplification and the Associated Pain-Related Brain Activity in a Capsaicin-Heat Pain Model

Musculoskeletal injuries lead to sensitization of nociceptors and primary hyperalgesia (hypersensitivity to painful stimuli). This occurs with back injuries, which are associated with acute pain and increased pain sensitivity at the site of injury. In some cases, back pain persists and leads to central sensitization and chronic pain. Thus, reducing primary hyperalgesia to prevent central sensitization may limit the transition from acute to chronic back pain. It has been shown that spinal manipulation (SM) reduces experimental and clinical pain, but the effect of SM on primary hyperalgesia and hypersensitivity to painful stimuli remains unclear. The goal of the present study was to investigate the effect of SM on pain hypersensitivity using a capsaicin-heat pain model. Laser stimulation was used to evoke heat pain and the associated brain activity, which were measured to assess their modulation by SM. Eighty healthy participants were recruited and randomly assigned to one of the four experimental groups: inert cream and no intervention; capsaicin cream and no intervention; capsaicin cream and SM at T7; capsaicin cream and placebo. Inert or capsaicin cream (1%) was applied to the T9 area. SM or placebo were performed 25 min after cream application. A series of laser stimuli were delivered on the area of cream application (1) before cream application, (2) after cream application but before SM or placebo, and (3) after SM or placebo. Capsaicin cream induced a significant increase in laser pain (p &lt; 0.001) and laser-evoked potential amplitude (p &lt; 0.001). However, SM did not decrease the amplification of laser pain or laser-evoked potentials by capsaicin. These results indicate that segmental SM does not reduce pain hypersensitivity and the associated pain-related brain activity in a capsaicin-heat pain model.

The Unknown Prevalence of Postrandomization Bias in 15 Physical Therapy Journals: A Methods Review

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of prospective clinical trial registration and postrandomization bias in published musculoskeletal physical therapy randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

A methods review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Articles indexed in MEDLINE and published between January 2016 and July 2020 were included.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent blinded reviewers identified the RCTs using Covidence. We included RCTs related to musculoskeletal interventions that were published in International Society of Physiotherapy Journal Editors member journals.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted independently for the variables of interest from the identified RCTs by 2 blinded reviewers. The data were presented descriptively or in frequency tables.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight RCTs were identified. One third of RCTs were consistent with their prospectively registered intent (49/138); consistency with prospectively registered intent could not be determined for two thirds (89/138) of the RCTs. Four RCTs (8%)reported inconsistent results with the primary aims and 7 (14%) with the outcomes from the prospective clinical trial registry, despite high methodological quality (Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro] scale score). Differences between prospectively registered and non-prospectively registered RCTs for PEDro scale scores had a medium effect size (r = 0.30). Two of 15 journals followed their clinical trial registration policy 100% of the time; in 1 journal, the published RCTs were consistent with the clinical trial registration.

CONCLUSION

Postrandomization bias in musculoskeletal physical therapy RCTs could not be ruled out, due to the lack of prospective clinical trial registration and detailed data analysis plans. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):542-550. Epub 21 Sep 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10491.

Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation Prevents Secondary Hyperalgesia Induced by Topical Capsaicin in Healthy Individuals

Background and Aims: Spinal manipulation (SM) is currently recommended for the management of back pain. Experimental studies indicate that the hypoalgesic mechanisms of SM may rely on inhibition of segmental processes related to temporal summation of pain and, possibly, on central sensitization, although this remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether experimental back pain, secondary hyperalgesia, and pain-related brain activity induced by capsaicin are decreased by segmental SM.

Methods: Seventy-three healthy volunteers were randomly allocated to one of four experimental groups: SM at T5 vertebral level (segmental), SM at T9 vertebral level (heterosegmental), placebo intervention at T5 vertebral level, or no intervention. Topical capsaicin was applied to the area of T5 vertebra for 40 min. After 20 min, the interventions were administered. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were assessed outside the area of capsaicin application at 0 and 40 min to examine secondary hyperalgesia. Capsaicin pain intensity and unpleasantness were reported every 4 min. Frontal high-gamma oscillations were also measured with electroencephalography.

Results: Pain ratings and brain activity were not significantly different between groups over time (p > 0.5). However, PPTs were significantly decreased in the placebo and control groups (p < 0.01), indicative of secondary hyperalgesia, while no hyperalgesia was observed for groups receiving SM (p = 1.0). This effect was independent of expectations and greater than placebo for segmental (p < 0.01) but not heterosegmental SM (p = 1.0).

Conclusions: These results indicate that segmental SM can prevent secondary hyperalgesia, independently of expectations. This has implications for the management of back pain, particularly when central sensitization is involved.

Effects of chiropractic spinal manipulation on laser-evoked pain and brain activity

The aim of this study was to examine the mechanisms underlying hypoalgesia induced by spinal manipulation (SM). Eighty-two healthy volunteers were assigned to one of the four intervention groups: no intervention, SM at T4 (homosegmental to pain), SM at T8 (heterosegmental to pain) or light mechanical stimulus at T4 (placebo). Eighty laser stimuli were applied on back skin at T4 to evoke pain and brain activity related to Aδ- and C-fibers activation. The intervention was performed after 40 stimuli. Laser pain was decreased by SM at T4 (p = 0.028) but not T8 (p = 0.13), compared with placebo. However, brain activity related to Aδ-fibers activation was not significantly modulated (all p > 0.05), while C-fiber activity could not be measured reliably. This indicates that SM produces segmental hypoalgesia through inhibition of nociceptive processes that are independent of Aδ fibers. It remains to be clarified whether the effect is mediated by the inhibition of C-fiber activity.

Effects of Percutaneous Electrolysis on Endogenous Pain Modulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study Protocol

Percutaneous electrolysis consists of the application of a galvanic electrical current throughout an acupuncture needle. It has been previously hypothesized that needling procedures' neurophysiological effects may be related to endogenous pain modulation (EPM). This protocol study describes the design of a double-blind (participant, assessor) randomized controlled trial with the aim to investigate whether percutaneous electrolysis is able to enhance EPM and whether the effect is different between two applications depending on the dosage of the galvanic electrical current. Seventy-two asymptomatic subjects not reporting the presence of pain symptoms the previous 6 months before the study, aged 18-40 years, are randomized into one of four groups: a control group who does not receive any intervention, a needling group who receives a needling intervention without electrical current, a low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis group (0.3 mA × 90 s), and a high-intensity percutaneous electrolysis group (three bouts of 3 mA × 3 s). Needling intervention consists of ultrasound-guided insertion of the needle on the common extensor tendon of the lateral epicondyle. The primary outcome is conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and secondary outcomes include widespread pressure pain sensitivity (pressure pain thresholds (PPT) over the lateral epicondyle, the cervical spine, and the tibialis anterior muscle) and temporal summation (TS). We expected that percutaneous electrolysis would have a greater influence on CPM than an isolated needling procedure and no intervention. In addition, we also postulated that there might be differences in outcome measures depending on the intensity of the electrical current during the percutaneous electrolysis application. This study makes a new contribution to the field of neurophysiological effects of percutaneous electrolysis and needling interventions.

Exploring expectations and perceptions of different manual therapy techniques in chronic low back pain: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) prevalence has steadily increased over the last two decades. Manual therapy (MT) is recommended within a multimodal management approach to improve pain and disability although evidence investigating the patients' experience of MT is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To explore expectations and perceptions of MT techniques in people with CLBP.

METHODS

A qualitative study embedded sequential to an experimental trial using semi-structured interviews (SSI) explored participants' experiences of thrust, non-thrust and sham technique. Purposive sampling enabled variance in age and CLBP duration. An evidence informed topic guide was used. Data were analysed using thematic analysis (TA). Respondent validation and peer debriefing enhanced trustworthiness. The Consolidating Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) reported methodological rigour.

FINDINGS

Ten participants (50% male) with a mean age of 29.1 years (Standard Deviation (SD): 7.9, range: 19-43), a mean pain intensity of 4.5 on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) 0-10 (SD: 1.5, range: 2-7), a mean Oswestry Disability Score (ODI) of 9 (SD: 4.6, range: 2-17) and a mean Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) score of 38.6 (SD: 4.8, range: 30-45) participated. Four themes were identified: understanding of pain; forming expectations; perception of care; re-evaluation of body awareness and management. Understanding of CLBP is formed by an individuals' pain perception and exchange with social environment. This, combined with communication with physiotherapist influenced expectations regarding the MT technique.

CONCLUSION

Expectations for MT were formed by an individual's social environment and previous experience. A treatment technique is perceived as positive if its characteristics are aligned with the individual's understanding of pain and if care is delivered in an informative and reassuring manner.

Neurophysiological mechanisms of chiropractic spinal manipulation for spine pain

Together, neck pain and back pain are the first cause of disability worldwide, accounting for more than 10% of the total years lived with disability. In this context, chiropractic care provides a safe and effective option for the management of a large proportion of these patients. Chiropractic is a healthcare profession mainly focused on the spine and the treatment of spinal disorders, including spine pain. Basic studies have examined the influence of chiropractic spinal manipulation (SM) on a variety of peripheral, spinal and supraspinal mechanisms involved in spine pain. While spinal cord mechanisms of pain inhibition contribute at least partly to the pain-relieving effects of chiropractic treatments, the evidence is weaker regarding peripheral and supraspinal mechanisms, which are important components of acute and chronic pain. This narrative review highlights the most relevant mechanisms of pain relief by SM and provides a perspective for future research on SM and spine pain, including the validation of placebo interventions that control for placebo effects and other non-specific effects that may be induced by SM. SIGNIFICANCE: Spinal manipulation inhibits back and neck pain partly through spinal segmental mechanisms and potentially through peripheral mechanisms regulating inflammatory responses. Other mechanisms remain to be clarified. Controls and placebo interventions need to be improved in order to clarify the contribution of specific and non-specific effects to pain relief by spinal manipulative therapy.

Efficacy of Manual Therapy on Facilitatory Nociception and Endogenous Pain Modulation in Older Adults with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Case Series

Background: manual therapy (MT) has been shown to have positive effects in patients with osteoarthritis (OA)-related pain, and its use in clinical settings is recommended. However, the mechanisms of action for how these positive effects occur are not yet well understood. The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of MT treatment on facilitatory nociception and endogenous pain modulation in patients with knee OA related pain. Methods: Twenty-eight patients with knee OA were included in this study. Pain intensity using the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), temporal summation (TS), conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and local (knee) and distant (elbow) hyperalgesia through the pressure pain threshold (PPT), were assessed to evaluate the pain modulatory system. Patients underwent four sessions of MT treatments within 3 weeks and were evaluated at the baseline, after the first session and after the fourth session. Results: the MT treatment reduced knee pain after the first session (p = 0.03) and after the fourth session (p = 0.04). TS decreased significantly after the fourth session of MT (p = 0.02), while a significant increase in the CPM assessment was detected after the fourth session (p = 0.05). No significant changes in the PPT over the knee and elbow were found in the follow-ups. Conclusions: The results from our study suggest that MT might be an effective and safe method for improving pain and for decreasing temporal summation.

Changes in pain sensitivity and spinal stiffness in relation to responder status following spinal manipulative therapy in chronic low Back pain: a secondary explorative analysis of a randomized trial

Background

In a prior randomized trial, we demonstrated that participants receiving spinal manipulative therapy at a pain-sensitive segment instead of a stiff segment experienced increased mechanical pressure pain thresholds. We hypothesized that the targeted segment mediated this increase through a segment-dependent neurophysiological reflective pathway. Presently, it is not known if this decrease in pain sensitivity is associated with clinical improvement. Therefore, we performed an explorative analysis to examine if changes in experimental pain sensitivity (mechanical and thermal) and lumbar stiffness were further dependent on clinical improvement in disability and patient-reported low back pain.

Methods

This study is a secondary explorative analysis of data from the randomized trial that compared 132 participants with chronic low back pain who received lumbar spinal manipulative therapy applied at either i) the stiffest segment or ii) the segment having the lowest pain threshold (i.e., the most pain-sensitive segment). We collected data at baseline, after the fourth session of spinal manipulation, and at 14-days follow-up. Participants were dichotomized into responders/non-responders using different clinical variables (disability and patient-reported low back pain) with varying threshold values (0, 30, and 50% improvement). Mixed models were used to assess changes in experimental outcomes (stiffness and pain sensitivity). The fixed interaction terms were time, segment allocation, and responder status.

Results

We observed a significant increase in mechanical pressure pain thresholds for the group, which received spinal manipulative therapy at the most pain-sensitive segment independent of whether they improved clinically or not. Those who received spinal manipulation at the stiffest segment also demonstrated increased mechanical pain sensitivity, but only in the subgroup with clinical improvement. We did not observe any changes in lumbar stiffness.

Conclusion

Our results suggest the existence of two different mechanistic pathways associated with the spinal manipulation target. i) A decrease of mechanical pain sensitivity independent of clinical outcome (neurophysiological) and ii) a decrease as a reflection of the clinical outcome. Together, these observations may provide a novel framework that improves our understanding of why some respond to spinal manipulative therapy while others do not.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04086667 registered retrospectively September 11th 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-020-03873-3.

Pressure pain threshold and temporal summation in adults with episodic and persistent low back pain trajectories: a secondary analysis at baseline and after lumbar manipulation or sham

Background

People with chronic low back pain (LBP) typically have increased pain sensitivity compared to healthy controls, however its unknown if pain sensitivity differs based on LBP trajectory at baseline or after manual therapy interventions. We aimed to compare baseline pressure pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation (TS) between people without LBP, with episodic LBP, and with persistent LBP, and to compare changes over time in PPT and TS after a lumbar spinal manipulation or sham manipulation in those with LBP.

Methods

Participants were aged 18–59, with or without LBP. Those with LBP were categorised as having either episodic or persistent LBP. PPT and TS were tested at baseline. LBP participants then received a lumbar spinal manipulation or sham, after which PPT and TS were re-tested three times over 30 min. Generalised linear mixed models were used to analyse data.

Results

One hundred participants (49 female) were included and analysed. There were 20 non-LBP participants (mean age 31 yrs), 23 episodic LBP (mean age 35 yrs), and 57 persistent LBP (mean age 37 yrs). There were no significant differences in PPT or TS between groups at baseline. There was a non-significant pattern of lower PPT (higher sensitivity) from the non-LBP group to the persistent LBP group at baseline, and high variability. Changes in PPT and TS after the interventions did not differ between the two LBP groups.

Discussion

We found no differences between people with no LBP, episodic LBP, or persistent LBP in baseline PPT or TS. Changes in PPT and TS following a lumbar manual therapy intervention do not appear to differ between LBP trajectories.

Trial registration

The trial was prospectively registered with ANZCTR (ACTRN12617001094369).

Changes in pressure pain threshold and temporal summation in rapid responders and non-rapid responders after lumbar spinal manipulation and sham: A secondary analysis in adults with low back pain

BACKGROUND

People with LBP who experience rapid improvement in symptoms after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are more likely to experience better longer-term outcomes compared to those who don't improve rapidly. It is unknown if short-term hypoalgesia after SMT could be a relevant finding in rapid responders.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to explore whether rapid responders had different short-term pressure pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation (TS) outcomes after SMT and sham compared to non-rapid responders.

METHODS

This was a planned secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial that recruited 80 adults with LBP (42 females, mean age 37 yrs). PPT at the calf, lumbar spine, and shoulder and TS at the hands and feet were measured before and three times over 30 min after a lumbar SMT or sham manipulation. Participants were classified as rapid responders or non-rapid responders based on self-reported change in LBP over the following 24 h.

RESULTS

Shoulder PPT transiently increased more in the rapid responders than non-rapid responders immediately post-intervention only (between-group difference in change from baseline = 0.29 kg/cm², 95% CI 0.02-0.56, p = .0497). There were no differences in calf PPT, lumbar PPT, hand TS, or foot TS based on responder status.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypoalgesia in shoulder PPT occurred transiently in the rapid responders compared to the non-rapid responders. This may or may not contribute to symptomatic improvement after SMT or sham in adults with LBP, and may be a spurious finding. Short-term changes in TS do not appear to be related to changes in LBP.

What is the effect of spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold in young, asymptomatic subjects? A randomized placebo-controlled trial, with a cross-over design

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation (SM) has been shown to have an effect on the pressure pain threshold (PPT) in asymptomatic subjects, but SM has never been compared in studies on this topic to a validated sham procedure. We investigated the effect of SM on the PPT when measured i) in the area of intervention and ii) in an area remote from the intervention. In addition, we measured the size and duration of the effect.

METHOD

In a randomized cross-over trial, 50 asymptomatic chiropractic students had their PPT measured at baseline, immediately after and every 12 min after intervention, over a period of 45 min, comparing values after SM and a previously validated sham. The trial was conducted during two sessions, separated by 48 h. PPT was measured both regionally and remotely from the 'treated' thoracic segment. Blinding of study subjects was tested with a post-intervention questionnaire. We used mixed linear regression with the baseline value and time as co-variates. If a significant difference were found between groups, then an effect size would be calculated using Cohen's d or Hedge's h coefficient. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Study subjects had been successfully blinded. No statistically significant differences were found between SM and sham estimates, at any time or anatomical location.

CONCLUSION

When compared to a valid sham procedure and with successfully blinded subjects, there is no regional or remote effect of spinal manipulation of the thoracic spine on the pressure pain threshold in a young pain-free population.