The regional effect of spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold in asymptomatic subjects: a systematic literature review

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.

Exploring the immediate and short-term effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold: a randomized controlled trial of healthy participants

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a common intervention used to treat low back pain (LBP); however, the exact neurophysiological mechanisms of SMT reducing pain measured through pain pressure threshold (PPT) have not been fully explored beyond an immediate timeframe (e.g., immediately or five-minutes following) referencing a control group. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT compared to deactivated ultrasound using PPT immediately following and 30-minutes following SMT.

METHODS

A longitudinal, randomized controlled trial design was conducted between September to October 2023. Fifty-five participants were randomized into a control group of deactivated ultrasound (n = 29) or treatment group of right sidelying lumbar SMT (n = 26). PPT, recorded at the right posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS), was documented for each participant in each group prior to intervention, immediately, and 30-minutes after. A repeated measures ANOVA, with a post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment, was used to assess within-group and between-group differences in PPT. The significance level was set at a < 0.05 a priori.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found between the deactivated ultrasound and lumbar SMT groups immediately (p = .05) and 30-minutes (p = .02) following intervention. A significant difference in the lumbar SMT group was identified from baseline to immediately following (p < .001) and 30-minutes following (p < .001), but no differences between immediately following and 30-minutes following intervention (p = .10). The deactivated ultrasound group demonstrated a difference between baseline and immediately after intervention with a reduced PPT (p = .003), but no significant difference was found from baseline to 30-minutes (p = .11) or immediately after intervention to 30-minutes (p = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

A right sidelying lumbar manipulation increased PPT at the right PSIS immediately after that lasted to 30-minutes when compared to a deactivated ultrasound control group. Future studies should further explore beyond the immediate and short-term neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT to validate these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered on 4 December 2023 in ClinicalTrials (database registration number NCT06156605).

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.

The Relationship between Abdominal Diastasis and Lumbar Pain Pressure Threshold in Women Who Have Given Birth between the Ages of 30 and 45 Years-An Observational Pilot Study

Background and Objectives: Current evidence confirms that the magnitude of the inter-rectus distance (IRD) is associated with the severity of abdominal pain. Furthermore, evidence exists in the literature about the impact abdominal muscles have on low back pain, lumbopelvic pain, breathing and lumbar abdominal strength; however, no studies analysing the level of association between abdominal diastasis and lumbar pain pressure threshold (PPT) exist. The aim of this study was to analyse the level of association between the rectus abdominis distance and pain pressure threshold in the lumbar spinous processes in women who have given birth between the ages of 30 and 45 years. Secondly, it was to study the level of association between the time elapsed since the last delivery and low back pain in women who have given birth between 30 and 45 years of age. Material and Methods: This was a pilot observational study in which 21 females participated. The abdominal diastasis was measured by ultrasound, the pain pressure threshold was assessed by an algometer and the pain perception by the Mc Gill questionnaire. Results: There was no significant relationship between increased abdominal distance and increased lumbopelvic pain in women who gave birth between the ages of 30 and 45 years. However, there was a correlation between the time that had elapsed since the last delivery and low back pain. Conclusions: there was a correlation between the time that had elapsed since the last delivery and low back pain. Further studies analysing factors that may perpetuate the chronicity of symptoms, such as lifestyle and intrinsic factors, are needed.

Association between myofascial trigger point therapy and conditioned pain modulation

INTRODUCTION

Myofascial trigger point therapy (MTrP) is a widely used therapeutic approach, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Mechanisms discussed include peripheral involvement of muscles as well as central pain modulating processes such as the conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The aim of this study was to investigate whether the analgesic response of MTrP and the analgesic response of CPM correlate in asymptomatic participants in order to identify shared underlying mechanisms of MTrP and CPM.

METHOD

Both, CPM and MTrP protocols consisted of heat-based test stimuli (heat pain thresholds before and after the intervention) and pressure-based (conditioning) stimuli. Asymptomatic participants (n = 94) were randomly assigned to receive either mild, intense or no pressure stimuli (between-group design) to both the fingernail and the MTrP of the infraspinatus muscle (within-group design). Pressure stimuli at both locations (fingernail, MTrP) were applied with a pressure algometer for 120 s and continuously adjusted to maintain a constant pain intensity of mild or intense pain. All thermal stimuli were applied on the lower leg with a thermal stimulator.

RESULTS

A significant correlation was shown between the analgesic effect of CPM and MTrP therapy for mild (r = 0.53, p = 0.002) and intensive stimuli (r = 0.73, p < 0.001). 17.3% of the variance of the MTrP effect were explained by CPM after mild stimulation, and 47.1% after intense stimulation. Pain-related characteristics did not explain the variance within the analgesic response using a regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Between the analgesic responses following MTrP and CPM paradigms, a moderate to strong correlation was observed, suggesting shared underlying mechanisms.

Does manual therapy meaningfully change quantitative sensory testing and patient reported outcome measures in patients with musculoskeletal impairments related to the spine?: A 'trustworthy' systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a 'trustworthy' systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis on the potential mechanisms of manual therapy used to treat spinal impairments.

DESIGN

SR with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Articles published between January 2010 and October 2022 from CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, ProQuest, and PEDro.

METHODS

This SR included English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving manual therapy to treat spinal impairments in adults. The primary outcome was pressure pain thresholds (PPTs). To synthesize RCTs with high confidence in estimated effects using the GRADE, RCTs with questionable prospective, external, and internal validity, and high risk of bias (RoB) were excluded.

RESULTS

Following title and abstract screening, 89 full-text RCTs were reviewed. Twenty-two studies included the criteria of interest. Sixteen were not prospectively registered, two contained discussion/conclusions judged to be inconsistent with the registry, and one was rated as having a high RoB. Three studies met the inclusion criteria; heterogeneous interventions and locations for PPT testing prevented synthesis into practice recommendations. The two studies with high confidence in estimated effects had small effect sizes, and one study had confidence intervals that crossed zero for the outcome measures of interest.

DISCUSSION

Standardized PPT testing, as a potential measure of centrally mediated pain, could provide clues regarding the mechanisms of manual therapy or help identify/refine research questions.

CONCLUSION

High-quality RCTs could not be synthesized into strong conclusions secondary to the dissimilarity in research designs. Future research regarding quantitative sensory testing should develop RCTs with high confidence in estimated effects that can be translated into strong recommendations.

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.

Immediate effects of spinal manipulation on painful sensitivity and postural stability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: study protocol for a controlled randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is one of the main public health concerns. Chronic low back pain (cLBP) reduces functional capacity and affects postural stability. Although health professionals widely use spinal manipulation, its immediate effect on painful sensitivity and postural stability is lacking. This study aims to verify the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold and postural stability in individuals with cLBP.

METHODS

A two-arm, placebo-controlled clinical trial with parallel groups and examiner-blinded will be conducted with 80 participants with cLBP from an outpatient physical therapy department, randomly allocated at a 1:1 distribution. The experimental group will receive a lumbar spinal manipulation technique, and the placebo group will receive a simulated lumbar spinal manipulation. Both groups will receive one session of treatment and will be evaluated before and immediately after the intervention. The primary outcomes will be the pressure pain threshold and postural stability. Pain intensity and patient's expectation will be assessed as a secondary outcome. The pressure pain threshold will be assessed using a pressure algometer in 6 different anatomical regions. The evaluation of postural stability will be performed in a baropodometry exam by displacing the centre of pressure. The pain intensity will be measured using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. A Likert scale will be used for the patient's expectation about the treatment. A two-way analysis of variance will compare the effect of the interventions between groups.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide insights regarding the immediate effects of spinal manipulation in patients with cLBP against a simulated spinal manipulation using objective outcomes and considering patients' expectations regarding the treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials RBR-3ksq2c . Registered on 13 July 2020.

Low Back Pain: A Comprehensive Review on the Diagnosis, Treatment Options, and the Role of Other Contributing Factors

BACKGROUND: In recent years, low back pain (LBP) is a growing major health issue around the world and mostly addressed in primary healthcare settings. This may be due to changing work environment including the nature of long sitting work hours, especially in the booming information and technology (IT) and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry. LBP is normally considered as a combination of various types of pain and its related conditions, which eventually lead to disabilities. AIM: In this article, the aim is to discuss the current and future perspectives of LBP mainly on diagnosis and therapeutic front of LBP. METHODS: A search was performed using electronic databases, which include PubMed Central and Google Scholar, using the related key words “back pain and low back pain.” All related peer reviewed published articles were included regardless of the language, region, or the publication date. RESULTS: Although the management of LBP both in terms of diagnosis as well as in the therapeutic options has witnessed considerable progress but challenges are still exist not only within countries but also in the regions and continents among various medical professionals. However, in the past few years, a huge array of coordinated but randomized multi-center clinical studies were performed and various detailed insight investigations have been done, and substantial clinical guidelines have become available. Hence, a new view on evidence-based management approach for LBP has significantly improved recently and discussed here. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence and literature, this comprehensive review discusses the present and future perspectives of LBP mainly on diagnosis and therapeutic front for LBP. In addition, current intervention and prevention plans have failed to lessen the considerable burden of LBP and hence several areas which require more details, which deserves additional discussion to augment us through an understanding of this very important topic on improvements of multi tasked outcomes to benefit the affected patients.

A cross-sectional analysis of persistent low back pain, using correlations between lumbar stiffness, pressure pain threshold, and heat pain threshold

Introduction

Little is known about the underlying biomechanical cause of low back pain (LBP). Recently, technological advances have made it possible to quantify biomechanical and neurophysiological measurements, potentially relevant factors in understanding LBP etiology. However, few studies have explored the relation between these factors. This study aims to quantify the correlation between biomechanical and neurophysiological outcomes in non-specific LBP and examine whether these correlations differ when considered regionally vs. segmentally.

Methods

This is a secondary cross-sectional analysis of 132 participants with persistent non-specific LBP. Biomechanical data included spinal stiffness (global stiffness) measured by a rolling indenter. Neurophysiological data included pain sensitivity (pressure pain threshold and heat pain threshold) measured by a pressure algometer and a thermode. Correlations were tested using Pearson’s product-moment correlation or Spearman’s rank correlation as appropriate. The association between these outcomes and the segmental level was tested using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey corrected comparisons.

Results

A moderate positive correlation was found between spinal stiffness and pressure pain threshold, i.e., high degrees of stiffness were associated with high pressure pain thresholds. The correlation between spinal stiffness and heat pain threshold was poor and not statistically significant. Aside from a statistically significant minor association between the lower and the upper lumbar segments and stiffness, no other segmental relation was shown.

Conclusions

The moderate correlation between spinal stiffness and mechanical pain sensitivity was the opposite of expected, meaning higher degrees of stiffness was associated with higher pressure pain thresholds. No clinically relevant segmental association existed.

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.

Hypoalgesic Effects of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Combined With Joint Manipulation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the hypoalgesic effects of isolated or combined use of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and cervical joint manipulation (JM) in asymptomatic participants.

METHODS

One hundred and forty-four healthy participants aged 18 to 30 years old were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups (n = 36 per group): active TENS + active JM, active TENS + placebo JM, placebo TENS + active JM, and placebo TENS + placebo JM. Active or placebo TENS was applied to the dominant forearm. JM was applied to the C6-7 segments. The pressure pain threshold was measured pre- and postintervention and after 20 minutes on the forearm and tibialis anterior of the dominant side.

RESULTS

Segmental hypoalgesia was greater in the group active TENS + active JM compared with active TENS + placebo JM (P = .002), placebo TENS + active JM (P < .0001), and placebo TENS + placebo JM (P < .0001). For the extrasegmental hypoalgesia, active TENS + active JM had greater hypoalgesic effect compared with active TENS + placebo JM (P = .033), placebo TENS + active JM (P = .002), and placebo TENS + placebo JM (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

TENS and JM produced hypoalgesia when used alone and, when the treatments were combined, a higher segmental and extrasegmental hypoalgesic effect was obtained in asymptomatic participants.

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.

Spinal manipulation and modulation of pain sensitivity in persistent low back pain: a secondary cluster analysis of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Pain hypersensitivity can be assessed using Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) and is associated with persistent low back pain. Spinal manipulation appears to modify pain hypersensitivity, and this could function as one mechanism leading to clinical improvements. In the current study, we applied a comprehensive QST battery to assess pain sensitivity in a cohort of low back pain patients before and after spinal manipulation to improve our understanding of the association between QST and clinical improvements. This study addresses two questions: Are clinical improvements following spinal manipulation in low back pain patients contingent on pain hypersensitivity, and does pain sensitivity change following spinal manipulation?

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial. One hundred and thirty-two participants with persistent LBP were treated with spinal manipulation four times over two weeks. Patient-reported outcomes and QST were assessed at baseline, after the fourth spinal manipulation session, and 14-days later. The clinical outcomes were changes in low back pain intensity and disability. Using latent profile analysis, we categorized the participants into clusters depending on their baseline QST scores. We used linear mixed models to examine the association between clusters and changes in patient-reported outcomes and QST.

RESULTS

Two clusters emerged: a Sensitized and a Not sensitized. The former had significantly lower regional pressure and thermal pain thresholds, remote pressure pain tolerance, and lower inhibitory conditioned pain modulation than the Not sensitized group. However, we only found between-cluster differences for regional pressure pain threshold following spinal manipulation. Thus, the clusters were not associated with patient-reported pain and disability changes or the remaining QST outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We report that the baseline QST profile was not associated with clinical improvements following spinal manipulation. We did observe a substantial change for regional pressure pain threshold, which suggests that any effect of spinal manipulation on pain sensitivity is most likely to be observed as changes in regional, mechanical pain threshold. However, the mechanism that invokes clinical improvement and pain sensitivity changes appear distinct. Due to methodological caveats, we advise caution when interpreting the results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical.Trial.gov identifier: NCT04086667 , registered 11 September 2019 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04086667.

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.

The effect on clinical outcomes when targeting spinal manipulation at stiffness or pain sensitivity: a randomized trial

The mechanisms underlying pain relief following spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are not understood fully although biomechanical and neurophysiological processes have been proposed. As such, we designed this randomized trial to elucidate the contributions of biomechanical and neurophysiological processes. A total of 132 participants with low back pain were randomly assigned to receive SMT at either the lumbar segment measured as the stiffest or the segment measured as having the lowest pain threshold. The primary outcome was patient reported low back pain intensity following treatment. Secondary outcomes were biomechanical stiffness and neurophysiological pressure pain threshold. All outcomes were measured at baseline, after the fourth and final session and at 2-weeks follow-up. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models, and demonstrated that the SMT application site did not influence patient reported low back pain intensity or stiffness. However, a large and significant difference in pressure pain threshold was observed between groups. This study provides support that SMT impacts neurophysiological parameters through a segment-dependent neurological reflex pathway, although this do not seem to be a proxy for improvement. This study was limited by the assumption that the applied treatment was sufficient to impact the primary outcome.

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.

The effect of a single spinal manipulation on cardiovascular autonomic activity and the relationship to pressure pain threshold: a randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled trial

Background

The autonomic nervous system interacts with the pain system. Knowledge on the effects of high velocity low amplitude spinal manipulations (SM) on autonomic activity and experimentally induced pain is limited. In particular, the effects of SM on autonomic activity and pain beyond the immediate post intervention period as well as the relationship between these two outcomes are understudied. Thus, new research is needed to provide further insight on this issue.

Objectives

The aim was to assess the effect of a single SM (i.e. SM vs. sham) on cardiovascular autonomic activity. Also, we assessed the relationship between cardiovascular autonomic activity and level of pain threshold after the interventions.

Method

We conducted a randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled trial on healthy first-year chiropractic students comprising two experimental sessions separated by 48 h. During each session, subjects received, in a random order, either a thoracic SM or a sham manipulation. Cardiovascular autonomic activity was assessed using heart rate and systolic blood pressure variabilities. Pain sensitivity was assessed using pressure pain threshold. Measurements were performed at baseline and repeated three times (every 12 min) during the post intervention period. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded. The effect of the SM was tested with linear mixed models. The relationship between autonomic outcomes and pressure pain threshold was tested with bivariate correlations.

Results

Fifty-one participants were included, forty-one were finally analyzed. We found no statistically significant difference between SM and sham in cardiovascular autonomic activity post intervention. Similarly, we found no post-intervention relationship between cardiovascular autonomic activity and pressure pain threshold.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that a single SM of the thoracic spine has no specific effect on cardiovascular autonomic activity. Also, we found no relationship between cardiovascular autonomic activity and pressure pain threshold after the SM. Further experimental research should consider the use of several markers of autonomic activity and a more comprehensive pain assessment.

Trial registration

N° NCT03273868. Registered September 6, 2017.

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

BACKGROUND

Changes in quantitative sensory tests have been observed after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), particularly in pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and temporal summation (TS). However, a recent systematic review comparing SMT to sham found no significant difference in PPT in patients with musculoskeletal pain. The sham-controlled studies were generally low quality, and conclusions about other quantitative sensory tests could not be made.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to perform a sham-controlled study with the specific objective of investigating changes in PPT and TS short-term after lumbar SMT compared to sham manipulation in people with low back pain.

METHODS

This was a double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing high-velocity low-amplitude lumbar SMT against sham manipulation in participants with low back pain. Primary outcome measures were PPT at the calf, lumbar spine and shoulder, and TS at the hands and feet. These were measured at baseline, then immediately, 15 min and 30 min post-intervention.

RESULTS

Eighty participants (42 females) were included in the analyses (mean age 37 years), with 40 participants allocated to each intervention group. Significant between-group differences were only observed for calf PPT, which could be explained by a decrease in PPT (increased sensitivity) after SMT and an increase after sham. Feet TS decreased significantly over time after both SMT and sham, and any other changes over time were inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that lumbar SMT does not have a short-term hypoalgesic effect, as measured with PPT and TS, when compared to sham manipulation in people with low back pain.

How big is the effect of spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold and for how long does it last? - secondary analysis of data from a systematic review

Background

Spinal manipulation (SM) has been shown in a systematic review to have a statistically significant effect on the pressure pain threshold (PPT) in asymptomatic subjects, when SM is compared to a sham intervention. The magnitude and duration of this effect is unclear.

Objectives

To determine the effect-size of SM in asymptomatic subjects and its duration.

Method

This is a secondary analysis of data from a previous review. We sought to compare the effect-sizes in the various articles but had to calculate them ourselves, at different follow-up time measurements. Effect-sizes (Cohen’s d or Hedge’s g coefficient) were considered low, medium, and large, at the cut points of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively.

Results

Effect-sizes were reported in 6/8 studies, but all had calculated ‘within-group’ changes, not ‘between-group’ differences. Immediately after SM, only one study of four (with four measurements) had a statistically significant ‘medium’ effect size (d = 0.56; 95% CI: 00.4–1.08 to d = 0.70; 95% CI:0.18–1.22). Five minutes after SM, 4/5 studies found a statistically significant ‘medium to large’ effect-size (d = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.04–0.98 to d = 1.24; 95% CI: 0.28–2.20). Ten minutes after SM, two studies reported a ‘medium’ effect-size with statistical significance (d = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.11–1.05 to d = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.12–1.48). We drew no conclusions for the effect-sizes at one minute and thirty minutes after SM, as no between-group statistical difference was found.

Conclusion

Authors need to revise their approach to ‘effect size’. Our calculations showed that the effect-size of SM on PPT may go from ‘medium’ to ‘large’ within the first five minutes but appears to diminish again within ten minutes. Research of this type should collect information for longer periods and compare results to other interventions to put results into perspective.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12998-019-0240-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Manipulation-induced hypoalgesia in musculoskeletal pain populations: a systematic critical review and meta-analysis

Background

Manipulation-induced hypoalgesia (MIH) represents reduced pain sensitivity following joint manipulation, and has been documented in various populations. It is unknown, however, whether MIH following high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy is a specific and clinically relevant treatment effect.

Methods

This systematic critical review with meta-analysis investigated changes in quantitative sensory testing measures following high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy in musculoskeletal pain populations, in randomised controlled trials. Our objectives were to compare changes in quantitative sensory testing outcomes after spinal manipulative therapy vs. sham, control and active interventions, to estimate the magnitude of change over time, and to determine whether changes are systemic or not.

Results

Fifteen studies were included. Thirteen measured pressure pain threshold, and four of these were sham-controlled. Change in pressure pain threshold after spinal manipulative therapy compared to sham revealed no significant difference. Pressure pain threshold increased significantly over time after spinal manipulative therapy (0.32 kg/cm², CI 0.22–0.42), which occurred systemically. There were too few studies comparing to other interventions or for other types of quantitative sensory testing to make robust conclusions about these.

Conclusions

We found that systemic MIH (for pressure pain threshold) does occur in musculoskeletal pain populations, though there was low quality evidence of no significant difference compared to sham manipulation. Future research should focus on the clinical relevance of MIH, and different types of quantitative sensory tests.

Trial registration

Prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration CRD42016041963).