Recommendations for the development, implementation, and reporting of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials of physical, psychological, and self-management therapies: the CoPPS Statement

Is personalization of psychological pain treatments necessary? Evidence from a Bayesian variance ratio meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

This is the first study to empirically determine the potential for data-driven personalization in the context of chronic primary pain (CPP). Effect sizes of psychological treatments for individuals with CPP are small to moderate on average. Aiming for better treatment outcomes for the individual patient, the call to personalize CPP treatment increased over time. However, empirical evidence that personalization of psychological treatments can optimize treatment outcomes in CPP is needed. This study seeks to estimate heterogeneity of treatment effect for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as the psychological treatment approach for CPP with the greatest evidence base. For this purpose, a Bayesian variance ratio meta-regression is conducted using updated data from 2 recently published meta-analyses with randomized controlled trials comparing CBT delivered face-to-face to treatment-as-usual or waiting list controls. Heterogeneity in patients with CPP would be reflected by a larger overall variance in the post-treatment score compared with the control group. We found first evidence for an individual treatment effect in CBT compared with the control group. The estimate for the intercept was 0.06, indicating a 6% higher variance of end point values in the intervention groups. However, this result warrants careful consideration. Further research is needed to shed light on the heterogeneity of psychological treatment studies and thus to uncover the full potential of data-driven personalized psychotherapy for patients with CPP.A Bayesian variance ratio meta-regression indicates empirical evidence that data-driven personalized psychotherapy for patients with chronic primary pain could increase effects of cognitive behavioral therapy.

Clinical improvements due to specific effects and placebo effects in conservative interventions and changes observed with no treatment in randomized controlled trials of patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Little is known about the contribution of placebo effects and changes observed with no treatment in interventions for nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP). This systematic review assessed the proportions of the overall treatment effect that may be attributable to specific treatment effects, placebo effects, and changes observed with no treatment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with NSLBP. Trials published before 2019 were identified from a published systematic review, and the search was updated in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central for trials published between January 2019 and March 2023. Three-arm RCTs comparing the effects of experimental interventions vs placebo control vs no intervention reporting pain intensity, physical function, and/or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were included. Sixteen RCTs with 1436 adults with chronic NSLBP testing conservative and mainly passive interventions were included. For pain intensity (16 studies), 33%, 18%, and 49% of the overall short-term treatment effect was attributable to specific treatment effects, placebo effects, and changes observed with no treatment, respectively. For physical function (11 studies) and HRQoL (6 studies), these proportions were 34%, 13%, and 53%, and 11%, 41%, and 48%, respectively. These results show that approximately half of the overall treatment effect of conservative and mainly passive interventions for patients with chronic NSLBP is attributable to changes observed with no treatment, rather than specific or placebo effects of treatments. However, the certainty of evidence was very low to low, suggesting that the true effects might be markedly different from the effect sizes underlying these estimates.

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers

BACKGROUND

Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research.

MAIN TEXT

This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

Feasibility of blinding spinal manual therapy interventions among participants and outcome assessors: protocol for a blinding feasibility trial

INTRODUCTION

Blinding is a methodologically important aspect in randomised controlled trials yet frequently overlooked in trials of spinal manual therapy interventions for back pain. To help inform the blinding methods of a future, double-placebo-controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain, we set four objectives: (1) to assess the feasibility of blinding participants, randomly allocated to an active or placebo-control spinal manual therapy intervention protocol, (2) to assess the feasibility of blinding outcome assessors within the trial, (3) to explore the influence of spinal manual therapy experience and low back pain on blinding, and (4) to explore factors contributing to perceptions about intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two-parallel-group, single-centre, placebo-controlled, methodological blinding feasibility randomised trial. We will recruit between 60 and 100 adults with or without back pain and with or without experience of spinal manual therapy from Zurich, Switzerland. Participants will be randomised to either an active spinal manual therapy or a placebo-control spinal manual therapy protocol-both interventions delivered over two study visits, up to two weeks apart. The primary outcome is participant blinding using the Bang blinding index within each intervention arm immediately after each of the two study visits. Secondary outcomes are participant blinding using the James blinding index, outcome assessor blinding (Bang and James blinding indices), self-reported factors influencing perceived intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors, and participant-reported credibility and expectancy of study interventions. Other outcomes-included to blind the study objective from participants-are lumbar spine range of motion, self-rated general health, satisfaction with care, pain intensity, and function. Intervention provider outcomes include intervention component fidelity and quality of intervention delivery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The independent ethics commission of Canton Zurich granted ethical approval for this study (KEK 2023-00381). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated in scientific conferences and a peer-reviewed publication and inform the blinding methods of a future double-placebo controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain-the SALuBRITY trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05778396.

Identifying priority gaps in contextual factors research and force-based manipulation. An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

To establish priority gaps related to contextual factors (CFs) research and force-based manipulation (FBM).

METHODS

A three-round Delphi following recommended guidelines for conducting and reporting Delphi studies (CREDES) involving international and interdisciplinary panelists with expertise in CFs and FBM. Round 1 was structured around two prompting questions created by the workgroup. Ranking of each priority gap was done by calculating composite scores for each theme generated. Consensus threshold was set with an agreement ≥75% among panelists. Median and interquartile range were calculated for each priority gap to provide the central tendency of responses. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate the consistency and stability of responses between rounds 2 and 3.

RESULTS

Forty-six panelists participated in all three rounds of the Delphi. Consensus was reached for 16 of 19 generated themes for priority gaps in CFs research and FBM. The ranking of each identified gap was computed and presented. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was non-significant (P > .05), demonstrating consistency and stability of results between rounds.

CONCLUSION

The result of this Delphi provides international and interdisciplinary consensus-based priority gaps in CFs research and FBM. The gaps identified can be used to generate future research inquiries involving CFs research and FBM.

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.

Is blinding in studies of manual soft tissue mobilisation of the back possible? A feasibility randomised controlled trial with Swiss graduate students

STUDY DESIGN

Single-centre, two-parallel group, methodological randomised controlled trial to assess blinding feasibility.

BACKGROUND

Trials of manual therapy interventions of the back face methodological challenges regarding blinding feasibility and success. We assessed the feasibility of blinding an active manual soft tissue mobilisation and control intervention of the back. We also assessed whether blinding is feasible among outcome assessors and explored factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment.

METHODS

On 7-8 November 2022, 24 participants were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to active or control manual interventions of the back. The active group (n = 11) received soft tissue mobilisation of the lumbar spine. The control group (n = 13) received light touch over the thoracic region with deep breathing exercises. The primary outcome was blinding of participants immediately after a one-time intervention session, as measured by the Bang blinding index (Bang BI). Bang BI ranges from -1 (complete opposite perceptions of intervention received) to 1 (complete correct perceptions), with 0 indicating 'random guessing'-balanced 'active' and 'control' perceptions within an intervention arm. Secondary outcomes included blinding of outcome assessors and factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment among both participants and outcome assessors, explored via thematic analysis.

RESULTS

24 participants were analysed following an intention-to-treat approach. 55% of participants in the active manual soft tissue mobilisation group correctly perceived their group assignment beyond chance immediately after intervention (Bang BI: 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25 to 0.84]), and 8% did so in the control group (0.08 [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.53]). Bang BIs in outcome assessors were 0.09 (-0.12 to 0.30) and -0.10 (-0.29 to 0.08) for active and control participants, respectively. Participants and outcome assessors reported varying factors related to their perceptions about intervention assignment.

CONCLUSIONS

Blinding of participants allocated to an active soft tissue mobilisation of the back was not feasible in this methodological trial, whereas blinding of participants allocated to the control intervention and outcome assessors was adequate. Findings are limited due to imprecision and suboptimal generalisability to clinical settings. Careful thinking and consideration of blinding in manual therapy trials is warranted and needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05822947 (retrospectively registered).

Central neuropathic pain

Central neuropathic pain arises from a lesion or disease of the central somatosensory nervous system such as brain injury, spinal cord injury, stroke, multiple sclerosis or related neuroinflammatory conditions. The incidence of central neuropathic pain differs based on its underlying cause. Individuals with spinal cord injury are at the highest risk; however, central post-stroke pain is the most prevalent form of central neuropathic pain worldwide. The mechanisms that underlie central neuropathic pain are not fully understood, but the pathophysiology likely involves intricate interactions and maladaptive plasticity within spinal circuits and brain circuits associated with nociception and antinociception coupled with neuronal hyperexcitability. Modulation of neuronal activity, neuron-glia and neuro-immune interactions and targeting pain-related alterations in brain connectivity, represent potential therapeutic approaches. Current evidence-based pharmacological treatments include antidepressants and gabapentinoids as first-line options. Non-pharmacological pain management options include self-management strategies, exercise and neuromodulation. A comprehensive pain history and clinical examination form the foundation of central neuropathic pain classification, identification of potential risk factors and stratification of patients for clinical trials. Advanced neurophysiological and neuroimaging techniques hold promise to improve the understanding of mechanisms that underlie central neuropathic pain and as predictive biomarkers of treatment outcome.

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for acute neck pain: A 4-arm clinical placebo randomized controlled trial. A prospective study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain poses enormous individual and societal costs worldwide. Spinal manipulative therapy and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug treatment are frequently used despite a lack of compelling efficacy data. This protocol describes a multicentre 4-arm, clinical placebo randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigating the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) versus sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine for acute neck pain. This superiority study will employ parallel groups, featuring a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We will randomize 320 participants equally into four groups: CSMT, sham CSMT, ibuprofen, or placebo medicine. CSMT groups are single-blinded, while the medicine groups are double-blinded. Data will be collected at baseline (Day 0), during treatment and post-treatment. The primary endpoint will assess the difference in mean pain intensity from Day 0 to Day 14 on a numeric rating scale 0-10; the CSMT group is compared to sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine groups, respectively. Secondary endpoints will assess mean pain intensity and mean duration at different time points, and adverse events, blinding success, and treatment satisfaction, including comparison between ibuprofen and placebo medicine. Power calculation is based on a mean neck pain rating of 5 at Day 0, with standard deviation of 1 in all groups. Mean pain reduction at Day 14 is expected to be 60% in the CSMT group, 40% in sham CSMT and ibuprofen groups, and 20% in the placebo medicine group. A linear mixed model will compare the mean values for groups with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. P values below 0.017 will be considered statistically significant. All analyses will be conducted blinded from group allocation.

DISCUSSION

This RCT aims towards the highest research standards possible for manual-therapy RCTs owing to its two placebo arms. If CSMT and/or ibuprofen proves to be effective, it will provide evidence-based support for CSMT and/or ibuprofen for acute neck pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05374057. EU Clinical Trials Register: EudraCT number: 2021-005483-21.

Improving Rehabilitation Research to Optimize Care and Outcomes for People with Chronic Primary Low Back Pain: Methodological and Reporting Recommendations from a WHO Systematic Review Series

Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) is a prevalent and disabling condition that often requires rehabilitation interventions to improve function and alleviate pain. This paper aims to advance future research, including systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), on CPLBP management. We provide methodological and reporting recommendations derived from our conducted systematic reviews, offering practical guidance for conducting robust research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for CPLBP. Our systematic reviews contributed to the development of a WHO clinical guideline for CPLBP. Based on our experience, we have identified methodological issues and recommendations, which are compiled in a comprehensive table and discussed systematically within established frameworks for reporting and critically appraising RCTs. In conclusion, embracing the complexity of CPLBP involves recognizing its multifactorial nature and diverse contexts and planning for varying treatment responses. By embracing this complexity and emphasizing methodological rigor, research in the field can be improved, potentially leading to better care and outcomes for individuals with CPLBP.

Addressing the elephant in the T-maze: Developing experimental conduct guidelines for neuroscience

Personal view - no abstract.