Validation of a sham novel neural mobilization technique in patients with non-specific low back pain: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial

The effectiveness of neurodynamic techniques in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy: Study protocol for a randomized sham-controlled trial

Background

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most common complications of diabetes mellitus (DM). DPN is the primary risk factor for diabetic foot ulcers that can cause amputation. Although several observational studies have investigated the morphological and biomechanical characteristics of peripheral nerves in DPN, interventional studies regarding the effectiveness of neurodynamic techniques (NDT) in DPN patients are confined to a handful. The effects of NDT on neuropathy severity, nerve conduction parameters, quality of life (QoL), and mechanosensitivity have not been explored yet in this population.

Materials and Methods

Forty type 2 DPN (T2DPN) patients, diagnosed based on an electrodiagnosis study, will be recruited into two groups. The experimental group will receive the tibial nerve's real proximal and distal slider techniques in addition to DPN standard treatment as a basic treatment, and the control group will receive the tibial nerve's sham proximal and distal slider techniques along with the basic treatment for eight sessions twice a week. Baseline and post-intervention assessments will be based on the Michigan diabetic neuropathy score (MDNS) (primary outcome), tibial nerve conduction parameters, neuropathy-specific quality of life (Neuro QoL) questionnaire, and straight leg raising range of motion (SLR ROM) (secondary outcomes).

Results

This study is expected to last approximately seven months, depending on recruitment. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Conclusions

The present study will evaluate the efficacy of NDT on the primary and secondary outcome measurements in DPN patients.

Blinding and sham control methods in trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for pain (article II): a meta-analysis relating methods to trial results

ABSTRACT

Sham interventions in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of physical, psychological, and self-management (PPS) therapies for pain are highly variable in design and believed to contribute to poor internal validity. However, it has not been formally tested whether the extent to which sham controls resemble the treatment under investigation consistently affects trial outcomes, such as effect sizes, differential attrition, participant expectancy, and blinding effectiveness. Placebo- or sham-controlled RCTs of PPS interventions of clinical pain populations were searched in 12 databases. The similarity of control interventions to the experimental treatment was rated across 25 features. Meta-regression analyses assessed putative links between employed control interventions, observed effect sizes in pain-related outcomes, attrition, and blinding success. The sample included 198 unique control interventions, dominated by manual therapy and chronic musculoskeletal pain research. Meta-analyses indicated small-to-moderate benefits of active treatments over control interventions, across subgroups of manual therapies, exercise, and rehabilitation, and psychological intervention trials. Multiple meta-regression modelling demonstrated that similarity between sham control and tested interventions predicted variability in pain-related outcomes, attrition, and blinding effectiveness. Influential variables were differences relating to the extent of intervention exposure, participant experience, and treatment environments. The results support the supposed link between blinding methods and effect sizes, based on a large and systematically sourced overview of methods. However, challenges to effective blinding are complex and often difficult to discern from trial reports. Nonetheless, these insights have the potential to change trial design, conduct, and reporting and will inform guideline development.

Blinding and sham control methods in trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for pain (article I): a systematic review and description of methods

ABSTRACT

Blinding is challenging in randomised controlled trials of physical, psychological, and self-management therapies for pain, mainly because of their complex and participatory nature. To develop standards for the design, implementation, and reporting of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials, a systematic overview of currently used sham interventions and other blinding methods was required. Twelve databases were searched for placebo or sham-controlled randomised clinical trials of physical, psychological, and self-management treatments in a clinical pain population. Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate, and trial features, description of control methods, and their similarity to the active intervention under investigation were extracted (protocol registration ID: CRD42020206590). The review included 198 unique control interventions, published between 2008 and December 2021. Most trials studied people with chronic pain, and more than half were manual therapy trials. The described control interventions ranged from clearly modelled based on the active treatment to largely dissimilar control interventions. Similarity between control and active interventions was more frequent for certain aspects (eg, duration and frequency of treatments) than others (eg, physical treatment procedures and patient sensory experiences). We also provide an overview of additional, potentially useful methods to enhance blinding, as well as the reporting of processes involved in developing control interventions. A comprehensive picture of prevalent blinding methods is provided, including a detailed assessment of the resemblance between active and control interventions. These findings can inform future developments of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials and best-practice recommendations.