1
|
Scholten S, Herzog P, Glombiewski JA, Kaiser T. Is personalization of psychological pain treatments necessary? Evidence from a Bayesian variance ratio meta-analysis. Pain 2024:00006396-990000000-00674. [PMID: 39106462 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003363] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2024] [Accepted: 06/29/2024] [Indexed: 08/09/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saskia Scholten
- Pain and Psychotherapy Research Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, Landau, Germany
| | - Philipp Herzog
- Pain and Psychotherapy Research Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, Landau, Germany
- Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States
| | - Julia Anna Glombiewski
- Pain and Psychotherapy Research Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, Landau, Germany
| | - Tim Kaiser
- Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Universität Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany
- AE Methoden und Evaluation, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pedersen JR, Strijkers R, Gerger H, Koes B, Chiarotto A. 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. Pain 2024; 165:1217-1232. [PMID: 38198235 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003151] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2023] [Accepted: 11/11/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Rønne Pedersen
- Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Rob Strijkers
- Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Heike Gerger
- Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bart Koes
- Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- Research Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health and the Center for Muscle and Joint Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Aspinall SL, Nim C, Hartvigsen J, Cook CE, Skillgate E, Vogel S, Hohenschurz-Schmidt D, Underwood M, Rubinstein SM. Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers. Chiropr Man Therap 2024; 32:16. [PMID: 38745213 PMCID: PMC11092111 DOI: 10.1186/s12998-024-00539-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2024] [Accepted: 05/01/2024] [Indexed: 05/16/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Casper Nim
- Medical Research Unit, Spine Centre of Southern Denmark, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Middelfart, Denmark
- Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Center for Muscle and Joint Health, Department of Sport Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Jan Hartvigsen
- Center for Muscle and Joint Health, Department of Sport Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Chiropractic Knowledge Hub, Odense, Denmark
| | - Chad E Cook
- Department of Orthopaedics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Eva Skillgate
- Department of Health Promotion Science, Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Naprapathögskolan, Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Steven Vogel
- Research Centre, University College of Osteopathy, London, UK
| | - David Hohenschurz-Schmidt
- Research Centre, University College of Osteopathy, London, UK
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Martin Underwood
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
- University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK
| | - Sidney M Rubinstein
- Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science and Amsterdam Movement Science Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Muñoz Laguna J, Kurmann A, Hofstetter L, Nyantakyi E, Clack L, Bang H, Foster NE, Braun J, Puhan MA, Farshad M, Hincapié CA. Feasibility of blinding spinal manual therapy interventions among participants and outcome assessors: protocol for a blinding feasibility trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2024; 10:70. [PMID: 38698433 PMCID: PMC11064349 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-024-01492-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2023] [Accepted: 04/14/2024] [Indexed: 05/05/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Javier Muñoz Laguna
- EBPI-UWZH Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Research Group, University of Zurich and Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- University Spine Centre Zurich (UWZH), Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Astrid Kurmann
- EBPI-UWZH Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Research Group, University of Zurich and Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Léonie Hofstetter
- EBPI-UWZH Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Research Group, University of Zurich and Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Emanuela Nyantakyi
- Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Lauren Clack
- Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Heejung Bang
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, United States
| | - Nadine E Foster
- Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Service (STARS), STARS Education and Research Alliance, The University of Queensland and Metro North Health, Brisbane, Australia
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom
| | - Julia Braun
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Milo A Puhan
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Mazda Farshad
- University Spine Centre Zurich (UWZH), Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Cesar A Hincapié
- EBPI-UWZH Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Research Group, University of Zurich and Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- University Spine Centre Zurich (UWZH), Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Griswold D, Learman K, Rossettini G, Palese A, Ickert E, Wilhelm M, Cook C, Bent J. Identifying priority gaps in contextual factors research and force-based manipulation. An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. J Man Manip Ther 2024; 32:118-126. [PMID: 37697816 PMCID: PMC10795597 DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2023.2255820] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2023] [Accepted: 08/31/2023] [Indexed: 09/13/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Griswold
- Department of Graduate Studies in Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH, USA
| | - Ken Learman
- Department of Graduate Studies in Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH, USA
| | | | - Alvisa Palese
- Department of Medical Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Edmund Ickert
- Department of Graduate Studies in Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH, USA
| | - Mark Wilhelm
- School of Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Chad Cook
- Department of Orthopaedics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
- Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Jennifer Bent
- Department of Rehabilitation, Duke University Hospital System, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kovanur Sampath K, Treffel L, P.Thomson O, Rodi JD, Fleischmann M, Tumilty S. Changes in biochemical markers following a spinal manipulation - a systematic review update. J Man Manip Ther 2024; 32:28-50. [PMID: 37671460 PMCID: PMC10795611 DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2023.2252187] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2023] [Accepted: 08/18/2023] [Indexed: 09/07/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kesava Kovanur Sampath
- Centre for Health and Social Practice, Waikato Institute of Technology, Te Pukenga, Hamilton, New Zealand
- School of Public Health, University of Technology, ARCCIM, Sydney, Australia
| | - Loïc Treffel
- School of Public Health, University of Technology, ARCCIM, Sydney, Australia
- Institut Toulousain d’Ostéopathie, IRF’O, Toulouse, France
- INMG-PGNM, Univ Lyon1, Lyon, France
| | - Oliver P.Thomson
- School of Public Health, University of Technology, ARCCIM, Sydney, Australia
- Research Department, University College of Osteopathy, London, UK
| | - Jerry Draper Rodi
- School of Public Health, University of Technology, ARCCIM, Sydney, Australia
- Research Department, University College of Osteopathy, London, UK
- National Council for Osteopathic Research, London, UK
| | - Michael Fleischmann
- School of Public Health, University of Technology, ARCCIM, Sydney, Australia
- School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Steve Tumilty
- Centre for Health, Activity, and Rehabilitation Research (CHARR), School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Muñoz Laguna J, Nyantakyi E, Bhattacharyya U, Blum K, Delucchi M, Klingebiel FKL, Labarile M, Roggo A, Weber M, Radtke T, Puhan MA, Hincapié CA. Is blinding in studies of manual soft tissue mobilisation of the back possible? A feasibility randomised controlled trial with Swiss graduate students. Chiropr Man Therap 2024; 32:3. [PMID: 38287417 PMCID: PMC10826218 DOI: 10.1186/s12998-023-00524-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2023] [Accepted: 12/07/2023] [Indexed: 01/31/2024] Open
Abstract
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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Javier Muñoz Laguna
- EBPI-UZWH Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Research Group, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- University Spine Centre Zurich (UWZH), Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - Emanuela Nyantakyi
- Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Urmila Bhattacharyya
- Institute of Evolutionary Medicine (IEM), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Kathrin Blum
- Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Matteo Delucchi
- Centre of Computational Health, Institute of Computational Life Sciences, Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Mathematics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Felix Karl-Ludwig Klingebiel
- Department of Trauma, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Harald Tscherne Laboratory for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Marco Labarile
- Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Andrea Roggo
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Manuel Weber
- School of Health Professions, Academic-Practice-Partnership between Bern University of Applied Sciences and University Hospital of Bern, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Radtke
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Milo A Puhan
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Cesar A Hincapié
- EBPI-UZWH Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Research Group, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- University Spine Centre Zurich (UWZH), Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Rosner J, de Andrade DC, Davis KD, Gustin SM, Kramer JLK, Seal RP, Finnerup NB. Central neuropathic pain. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2023; 9:73. [PMID: 38129427 PMCID: PMC11329872 DOI: 10.1038/s41572-023-00484-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/21/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan Rosner
- Danish Pain Research Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
- Spinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Neurology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Daniel C de Andrade
- Center for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Karen D Davis
- Division of Brain, Imaging and Behaviour, Krembil Brain Institute, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Surgery and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sylvia M Gustin
- Centre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- NeuroRecovery Research Hub, School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - John L K Kramer
- International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, ICORD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Rebecca P Seal
- Pittsburgh Center for Pain Research, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Departments of Neurobiology and Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Nanna B Finnerup
- Danish Pain Research Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
- Department of Neurology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Chaibi A, Allen-Unhammer A, Køpke Vøllestad N, Russell MB. Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for acute neck pain: A 4-arm clinical placebo randomized controlled trial. A prospective study protocol. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0295115. [PMID: 38060549 PMCID: PMC10703251 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2023] [Accepted: 11/07/2023] [Indexed: 12/18/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aleksander Chaibi
- Department for Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Anna Allen-Unhammer
- Department for Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Nina Køpke Vøllestad
- Department for Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Michael Bjørn Russell
- Head and Neck Research Group, Division for Research and Innovation, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Oslo, Norway
- Campus Akershus University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Nordbyhagen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Cancelliere C, Yu H, Southerst D, Connell G, Verville L, Bussières A, Gross DP, Pereira P, Mior S, Tricco AC, Cedraschi C, Brunton G, Nordin M, Shearer HM, Wong JJ, Hayden JA, Ogilvie R, Wang D, Côté P, Hincapié CA. 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. JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION 2023; 33:673-686. [PMID: 37991649 PMCID: PMC10684421 DOI: 10.1007/s10926-023-10140-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/18/2023] [Indexed: 11/23/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carol Cancelliere
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada.
| | - Hainan Yu
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - Danielle Southerst
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - Gaelan Connell
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - Leslie Verville
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - André Bussières
- Département Chiropratique, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières (Québec), Canada
- School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Québec, Canada
| | - Douglas P Gross
- Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Paulo Pereira
- Department of Neurosurgery, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Silvano Mior
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
- Department of Research and Innovation, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrea C Tricco
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - Christine Cedraschi
- Division of General Medical Rehabilitation, Geneva University and University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
- Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Ginny Brunton
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
- EPPI-Centre, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, England, UK
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Margareta Nordin
- Departments of Orthopedic Surgery and Environmental Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, USA
| | - Heather M Shearer
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
- Department of Research and Innovation, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Canada
- Bloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, Canada
| | - Jessica J Wong
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - Jill A Hayden
- Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
| | - Rachel Ogilvie
- Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
| | - Dan Wang
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - Pierre Côté
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
- Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Cesar A Hincapié
- EBPI-UWZH Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Research Group, University of Zurich and Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- University Spine Centre Zurich (UWZH), Balgrist University Hospital and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Vollert J. Addressing the elephant in the T-maze: Developing experimental conduct guidelines for neuroscience. J Neurosci Methods 2023; 398:109956. [PMID: 37633649 DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2023.109956] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2023] [Revised: 08/18/2023] [Accepted: 08/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/28/2023]
Abstract
Personal view - no abstract.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan Vollert
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Division of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Germany; Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|