Effects of joint and nerve mobilisation on neuroimmune responses in animals and humans with neuromusculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Manual therapy and exercise effects on inflammatory cytokines: a narrative overview

Background

Matching disease and treatment mechanisms is a goal of the Precision Medicine Initiative. Pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha, Transforming Growth Factor-beta, and Interleukin-2, 10, and 12) have gained a significant amount of interest in their potential role in persistent pain for musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. Manual therapy (MT) and exercise are two guideline-recommended approaches for treating MSK conditions. The objective of this narrative overview was to investigate of the effects of MT and exercise on pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and determine the factors that lead to variability in results.

Methods

Two reviewers evaluated the direction and variabilities of MT and exercise literature. A red, yellow, and green light scoring system was used to define consistencies.

Results

Consistencies in responses were seen with acute and chronic exercise and both pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Chronic exercise is associated with a consistent shift towards a more anti-inflammatory cytokine profile (Transforming Growth Factor-beta, and Interleukin-2 and 13, whereas acute bouts of intense exercise can transiently increase pro-inflammatory cytokine levels. The influence of MT on cytokines was less commonly studied and yielded more variable results.

Conclusion

Variability in findings is likely related to the subject and their baseline condition or disease, when measurement occurs, and the exercise intensity, duration, and an individual's overall health and fitness.

Vertebral Subluxation and Systems Biology: An Integrative Review Exploring the Salutogenic Influence of Chiropractic Care on the Neuroendocrine-Immune System

In this paper we synthesize an expansive body of literature examining the multifaceted influence of chiropractic care on processes within and modulators of the neuroendocrine-immune (NEI) system, for the purpose of generating an inductive hypothesis regarding the potential impacts of chiropractic care on integrated physiology. Taking a broad, interdisciplinary, and integrative view of two decades of research-documented outcomes of chiropractic care, inclusive of reports ranging from systematic and meta-analysis and randomized and observational trials to case and cohort studies, this review encapsulates a rigorous analysis of research and suggests the appropriateness of a more integrative perspective on the impact of chiropractic care on systemic physiology. A novel perspective on the salutogenic, health-promoting effects of chiropractic adjustment is presented, focused on the improvement of physical indicators of well-being and adaptability such as blood pressure, heart rate variability, and sleep, potential benefits that may be facilitated through multiple neurologically mediated pathways. Our findings support the biological plausibility of complex benefits from chiropractic intervention that is not limited to simple neuromusculoskeletal outcomes and open new avenues for future research, specifically the exploration and mapping of the precise neural pathways and networks influenced by chiropractic adjustment.

Massage for neck pain

BACKGROUND

Massage is widely used for neck pain, but its effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of massage compared to placebo or sham, no treatment or exercise as an adjuvant to the same co-intervention for acute to chronic persisting neck pain in adults with or without radiculopathy, including whiplash-associated disorders and cervicogenic headache.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, trial registries) to 1 October 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of massage with sham or placebo, no treatment or wait-list, or massage as an adjuvant treatment, in adults with acute, subacute or chronic neck pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We transformed outcomes to standardise the direction of the effect (a smaller score is better). We used a partially contextualised approach relative to identified thresholds to report the effect size as slight-small, moderate or large-substantive.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 studies (1994 participants analysed). Selection (82%) and detection bias (94%) were common; multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding to the placebo was effective. Massage was compared with placebo (n = 10) or no treatment (n = 8), or assessed as an adjuvant to the same co-treatment (n = 15). The trials studied adults aged 18 to 70 years, 70% female, with mean pain severity of 51.8 (standard deviation (SD) 14.1) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100). Neck pain was subacute-chronic and classified as non-specific neck pain (85%, including n = 1 whiplash), radiculopathy (6%) or cervicogenic headache (9%). Trials were conducted in outpatient settings in Asia (n = 11), America (n = 5), Africa (n = 1), Europe (n = 12) and the Middle East (n = 4). Trials received research funding (15%) from research institutes. We report the main results for the comparison of massage versus placebo. Low-certainty evidence indicates that massage probably results in little to no difference in pain, function-disability and health-related quality of life when compared against a placebo for subacute-chronic neck pain at up to 12 weeks follow-up. It may slightly improve participant-reported treatment success. Subgroup analysis by dose showed a clinically important difference favouring a high dose (≥ 8 sessions over four weeks for ≥ 30 minutes duration). There is very low-certainty evidence for total adverse events. Data on patient satisfaction and serious adverse events were not available. Pain was a mean of 20.55 points with placebo and improved by 3.43 points with massage (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.16 better to 1.29 worse) on a 0 to 100 scale, where a lower score indicates less pain (8 studies, 403 participants; I2 = 39%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to indirectness; most trials in the placebo comparison used suboptimal massage doses (only single sessions). Selection, performance and detection bias were evident as multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding was effective, respectively. Function-disability was a mean of 30.90 points with placebo and improved by 9.69 points with massage (95% CI 17.57 better to 1.81 better) on the Neck Disability Index 0 to 100, where a lower score indicates better function (2 studies, 68 participants; I2 = 0%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (the wide CI represents slight to moderate benefit that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of selection, performance and detection biases. Participant-reported treatment success was a mean of 3.1 points with placebo and improved by 0.80 points with massage (95% CI 1.39 better to 0.21 better) on a Global Improvement 1 to 7 scale, where a lower score indicates very much improved (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (single study with a wide CI that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of performance as well as detection bias. Health-related quality of life was a mean of 43.2 points with placebo and improved by 5.30 points with massage (95% CI 8.24 better to 2.36 better) on the SF-12 (physical) 0 to 100 scale, where 0 indicates the lowest level of health (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence once for imprecision (a single small study) and risk of performance and detection bias. We are uncertain whether massage results in increased total adverse events, such as treatment soreness, sweating or low blood pressure (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.08 to 11.55; 2 studies, 175 participants; I2 = 77%). We downgraded the evidence to very low-certainty due to unexplained inconsistency, risk of performance and detection bias, and imprecision (the CI was extremely wide and the total number of events was very small, i.e < 200 events).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The contribution of massage to the management of neck pain remains uncertain given the predominance of low-certainty evidence in this field. For subacute and chronic neck pain (closest to 12 weeks follow-up), massage may result in a little or no difference in improving pain, function-disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success when compared to a placebo. Inadequate reporting on adverse events precluded analysis. Focused planning for larger, adequately dosed, well-designed trials is needed.

Changes in biochemical markers following a spinal manipulation - a systematic review update

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to update the current level of evidence for spinal manipulation in influencing various biochemical markers in healthy and/or symptomatic population.

METHODS

This is a systematic review update. Various databases were searched (inception till May 2023) and fifteen trials (737 participants) that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Two authors independently screened, extracted and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. Outcome measure data were synthesized using standard mean differences and meta-analysis for the primary outcome (biochemical markers). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome of interest.

RESULTS

There was low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation influenced various biochemical markers (not pooled). There was low-quality evidence of significant difference that spinal manipulation is better (SMD -0.42, 95% CI - 0.74 to -0.1) than control in eliciting changes in cortisol levels immediately after intervention. Low-quality evidence further indicated (not pooled) that spinal manipulation can influence inflammatory markers such as interleukins levels post-intervention. There was also very low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation does not influence substance-P, neurotensin, oxytocin, orexin-A, testosterone and epinephrine/nor-epinephrine.

CONCLUSION

Spinal manipulation may influence inflammatory and cortisol post-intervention. However, the wider prediction intervals in most outcome measures point to the need for future research to clarify and establish the clinical relevance of these changes.

The potential protective effects of pre-injury exercise on neuroimmune responses following experimentally-induced traumatic neuropathy: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Pre-clinical evidence shows that neuropathy is associated with complex neuroimmune responses, which in turn are associated with increased intensity and persistence of neuropathic pain. Routine exercise has the potential to mitigate complications of future nerve damage and persistence of pain through neuroimmune regulation. This systematic review aimed to explore the effect of pre-injury exercise on neuroimmune responses, and other physiological and behavioural reactions following peripheral neuropathy in animals. Three electronic databases were searched from inception to July 2022. All controlled animal studies assessing the influence of an active exercise program prior to experimentally-induced traumatic peripheral neuropathy compared to a non-exercise control group on neuroimmune, physiological and behavioural outcomes were selected. The search identified 17,431 records. After screening, 11 articles were included. Meta-analyses showed that pre-injury exercise significantly reduced levels of IL-1β (SMD: -1.06, 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.13, n=40), but not iNOS (SMD: -0.71 95% CI: -1.66 to 0.25, n=82). From 72 comparisons of different neuroimmune outcomes at different anatomical locations, vote counting revealed reductions in 23 pro-inflammatory and increases in 6 anti-inflammatory neuroimmune outcomes. For physiological outcomes, meta-analyses revealed that pre-injury exercise improved one out of six nerve morphometric related outcomes (G-ratio; SMD: 1.95, 95%CI: 0.77 to 3.12, n=20) and one out of two muscle morphometric outcomes (muscle fibre cross-sectional area; SMD: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.27 to 1.54, n=48). For behavioural outcomes, mechanical allodynia was significantly less in the pre-injury exercise group (SMD -1.24, 95%CI: -1.87 to -0.61) whereas no overall effect was seen for sciatic function index. Post hoc subgroup analysis suggests that timing of outcome measurement may influence the effect of pre-injury exercise on mechanical allodynia. Risk of bias was unclear in most studies, as the design and conduct of the included experiments were poorly reported. Preventative exercise may have potential neuroprotective and immunoregulatory effects limiting the sequalae of nerve injury, but more research in this field is urgently needed.

Immediate systemic neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisation and manipulation in people with non-specific neck pain: a randomised placebo-controlled trial

Spinal mobilisation/manipulation is a common intervention for spinal pain, yet the working mechanisms are largely unknown. A randomised placebo-controlled trial was conducted to (1) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisation/manipulation and placebo spinal mobilisation/manipulation; (2) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses of those with a good outcome with those of a poor outcome following spinal mobilisation/manipulation; and (3) explore the association between neuroimmune responses and pain reduction. One hundred patients were randomly allocated to spinal mobilisation/manipulation or a placebo mobilisation/manipulation. Primary outcomes were whole blood in-vitro evoked released concentrations of IL-1β and TNF-α measured 10 min and 2 h after the intervention. Immediate effects were studied because successful mobilisation/manipulation is often associated with immediate pain reduction, and immediate neuroimmune responses are less affected by potential confounders than long-term responses. Secondary outcomes included multiple systemic inflammatory marker concentrations, phenotypic analysis of white blood cells and clinical outcomes. Outcomes were compared between the experimental and placebo group, and between people with a good and poor outcome in the experimental group. Estimates of intervention effects were based on intention-to-treat analyses, by using linear mixed-effect models. Although there was a substantial difference in pain reduction between groups (mean (SD) difference visual analogue scale: 30 (21) mm at 10 min and 32 (21) mm at 2 h (p < 0.001) in favour of mobilisation/manipulation, there were no differences in primary outcomes between groups or between people with a good and poor outcome (p ≥ 0.10). In conclusion, possible neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisations/manipulation cannot be identified at a systemic level. Future research may focus on longer treatment duration and more localised neuroimmune responses.

The power of integrating data: advancing pain research using meta-analysis

Publications related to pain research have increased significantly in recent years. The abundance of new evidence creates challenges staying up to date with the latest information. A comprehensive understanding of the literature is important for both clinicians and investigators involved in pain research. One commonly used method to combine and analyse data in health care research is meta-analysis. The primary aim of a meta-analysis is to quantitatively synthesise the results of multiple studies focused on the same research question. Meta-analysis is a powerful tool that can be used to advance pain research. However, there are inherent challenges when combining data from multiple sources. There are also numerous models and statistical considerations when undertaking a meta-analysis. This review aims to discuss the planning and preparation for completing a meta-analysis, review commonly used meta-analysis models, and evaluate the clinical implications of meta-analysis in pain research.

Neurodynamics: is tension contentious?

Tensioning techniqueswere the first neurodynamic techniques used therapeutically in the management of people with neuropathies. This article aims to provide a balanced evidence-informed view on the effects of optimal tensile loading on peripheral nerves and the use of tensioning techniques. Whilst the early use of neurodynamics was centered within a mechanical paradigm, research into the working mechanisms of tensioning techniques revealed neuroimmune, neurophysiological, and neurochemical effects. In-vitro and ex-vivo research confirms that tensile loading is required for mechanical adaptation of healthy and healing neurons and nerves. Moreover, elimination of tensile load can have detrimental effects on the nervous system. Beneficial effects of tensile loading and tensioning techniques, contributing to restored homeostasis at the entrapment site, dorsal root ganglia and spinal cord, include neuronal cell differentiation, neurite outgrowth and orientation, increased endogenous opioid receptors, reduced fibrosis and intraneural scar formation, improved nerve regeneration and remyelination, increased muscle power and locomotion, less mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia and allodynia, and improved conditioned pain modulation. However, animal and cellular models also show that ‘excessive’ tensile forces have negative effects on the nervous system. Although robust and designed to withstand mechanical load, the nervous system is equally a delicate system. Mechanical loads that can be easily handled by a healthy nervous system, may be sufficient to aggravate clinical symptoms in patients. This paper aims to contribute to a more balanced view regarding the use of neurodynamics and more specifically tensioning techniques.

Effectiveness of Neural Mobilisation Techniques in the Management of Musculoskeletal Neck Disorders with Nerve-Related Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with a Mapping Report

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the effectiveness of neural mobilisation (NM) techniques in the management of musculoskeletal neck disorders with nerve-related symptoms (MND-NRS).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis, using pain intensity, disability, perceived function, cervical range of motion and mechanosensitivity as the main outcome measures.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 22 studies (n = 978). More favourable outcomes were observed for NM on pain intensity compared with control interventions (standardised mean differences (SMDs) -0.92; 95% CI - 1.66--0.18), but not compared with other treatments (OTs) (SMD 1.06; 95% CI - 0.02-2.15). Regarding neck pain intensity, no significant differences were found in favour of NM compared with OTs (SMD 0.37; 95% CI - 0.35-1.1). However, between-treatment differences were found in favour of OT on arm-pain intensity (SMD 0.57; 95% CI 0.08-1.05). In addition, the grouped MA did not show statistically significant differences between NM and OT outcomes on the cervical range of motion (SMD 0.16; 95% CI - 0.06-0.38). However, compared with no intervention, NM was associated with significantly improved outcomes in cervical rotation (SMD 0.91; 95% CI 0.61-1.22). Similar results were found regarding disability (SMD -0.08; 95% CI - 0.36--0.20, and SMD -1.44; 95% CI - 2.28--0.6, respectively). Finally, NM was associated with more favourable outcomes on mechanosensitivity compared with OT (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.15-1.42) and greater improvements in function compared with no intervention (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.16-1.62).

CONCLUSIONS

NM appeared to be effective to improve overall pain intensity when embedded in a physiotherapy treatment in the management of MND-NRS. When compared with no intervention, it was effective to improve neck rotation, disability, and function. However, it was not superior to other types of treatments in improving overall pain intensity, neck pain intensity, arm pain intensity, cervical range of motion and disability, except for mechanosensitivity.