Quantitative Sensory Testing and Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia Protocols in Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review

A significant driver of pain in individuals with low back pain (LBP) is alterations to endogenous pain modulation (EPM). EPM can be measured using quantitative sensory testing (QST), however; there are inconsistencies in the way QST has been implemented across the low back pain literature. The objective of this scoping review was to summarize protocols used to assess EPM using QST (pain pressure threshold (PPT), temporal summation (TS), conditioned pain modulation (CPM)) or exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) in LBP. Databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL and AMED were searched on June 15, 2023, for articles that used QST or EIH protocols in LBP populations. Data was extracted on participants, study design, setting and details on QST and EIH protocols. Of the 221 studies included in the review, 196 used PPT, 62 used TS and 60 used CPM; only 5 studies investigated EIH. For all QST, there was high variability in the type of equipment, timing, trials, and testing location with many studies not reporting this information. There were 4 testing modalities used for TS, and 7 different test stimuli, and 3 different conditioning stimuli used across the studies for CPM. For CPM and EIH, PPT was the most common testing modality. There were 4 types of exercises used across the 5 EIH studies. This scoping review provides a summary of QST and EIH protocols in LBP that may be used as a guide for assessment in future studies. These results demonstrate a need for the development of standardized protocols and reporting guidelines. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a summary of measures used to assess EPM in LBP. The results show the wide variability of protocols used in the literature. Future research should focus on creating standardized protocols, reporting guidelines and providing more guidance for researchers in selecting appropriate tests for their research questions.

No effect of social interaction on experimental pain sensitivity: a randomized experimental study

ABSTRACT

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a commonly applied paradigm to investigate pain, which is a subjective experience influenced by a myriad of social and contextual factors. Therefore, it is important to consider the potential sensitivity of QST to the test setting and the social interaction that naturally is a part of it. This may particularly be the case in clinical settings where patients have something at stake. Therefore, we investigated differences in pain responses using QST in different test setups with varying degrees of human interaction. In a parallel three-armed randomized experimental study, we included 92 participants with low back pain and 87 healthy volunteers allocated to 1 of the 3 QST setups: 1 setup with manual tests performed by a human tester, 1 setup with automated tests performed by a robot and orally guided by a human tester, and 1 setup with automated tests performed solely by a robot without social interaction with a human tester. All 3 setups consisted of the same pain tests in the same order, including pressure pain threshold and cold pressor tests. We found no statistically significant differences between setups on the primary outcome of conditioned pain modulation nor any secondary QST outcomes. While this study is not without limitations, the results indicate that QST procedures are robust enough not to be influenced by social interaction to an appreciable degree.

Current Concept of Quantitative Sensory Testing and Pressure Pain Threshold in Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain

In recent years, several published articles have shown that quantitative sensory testing (QST) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) are useful in the analysis of neck/shoulder and low back pain. A valid reference for normal PPT values might be helpful for the clinical diagnosis of abnormal tenderness or muscle pain. However, there have been no reliable references for PPT values of neck/shoulder and back pain because the data vary depending on the devices used, the measurement units, and the area examined. In this article, we review previously published PPT articles on neck/shoulder and low back pain, discuss the measurement properties of PPT, and summarize the current data on PPT values in patients with chronic pain and healthy volunteers. We also reveal previous issues related to PPT evaluation and discuss the future of PPT assessment for widespread use in general clinics. We outline QST and PPT measurements and what kinds of perceptions can be quantified with the PPT. Ninety-seven articles were selected in the present review, in which we focused on the normative values and abnormal values in volunteers/patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. We conducted our search of articles using PubMed and Medline, a medical database. We used a combination of “Pressure pain threshold” and “Neck shoulder pain” or “Back pain” as search terms and searched articles from 1 January 2000 to 1 June 2022. From the data extracted, we revealed the PPT values in healthy control subjects and patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. This database could serve as a benchmark for future research with pressure algometers for the wide use of PPT assessment in clinics.

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.

Associated Risk Factors with Low Back Pain in White-Collar Workers-A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: The purpose of the study was to compare the pressure pain threshold (PPT) of soft tissue and the curvatures of the spine in a sitting position and to estimate associated physical risk factors with low back pain (LBP) in young adults. Subjects: White-collar workers (n= 139), both women (n = 51) and men (n = 88) were separated into a control group (n = 82) and a low-intensity LBP (NRS < 3) (n = 57). Methods: The PPTs were tested utilizing the Wagner algometer. The curvatures of the spine were measured employing the photogrammetric method. In the logistic regression model, the odds ratio (OR) was estimated with ±95% confidence interval (CI) indicating the probability of the reported LBP. Results: The PPTs of soft tissue (OR = 1.1; CI = 1.02−1.19; p < 0.05) and the angle of the thoracolumbar spine in the everyday, habitual sitting position (OR = 1.19; CI = 1.05−1.34; p < 0.05) were associated with low-intensity LBP in female subjects. Additionally, the low intensity LBP were associated with the angles of the torso (OR = 1.14; CI = 1.01−1.29; p < 0.05) and the lumbosacral spine in the corrected sitting position (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.98−1.15; p > 0.05) and BMI (OR = 1.56; CI = 0.84−2.90; p > 0.05) in male subjects. Conclusion: Individual risk factors were associated with the low-intensity LBP only in females utilizing the PPT and the thoracolumbar angle in the habitual sitting position study factors. Men from the LBP group did not effectively correct the lumbosacral angle. Therefore, re-educated, self-corrected posture with specific postural training would be expected to improve proprioception in postural control capacity and result in decreasing pain.

Segmental Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation Does not Reduce Pain Amplification and the Associated Pain-Related Brain Activity in a Capsaicin-Heat Pain Model

Musculoskeletal injuries lead to sensitization of nociceptors and primary hyperalgesia (hypersensitivity to painful stimuli). This occurs with back injuries, which are associated with acute pain and increased pain sensitivity at the site of injury. In some cases, back pain persists and leads to central sensitization and chronic pain. Thus, reducing primary hyperalgesia to prevent central sensitization may limit the transition from acute to chronic back pain. It has been shown that spinal manipulation (SM) reduces experimental and clinical pain, but the effect of SM on primary hyperalgesia and hypersensitivity to painful stimuli remains unclear. The goal of the present study was to investigate the effect of SM on pain hypersensitivity using a capsaicin-heat pain model. Laser stimulation was used to evoke heat pain and the associated brain activity, which were measured to assess their modulation by SM. Eighty healthy participants were recruited and randomly assigned to one of the four experimental groups: inert cream and no intervention; capsaicin cream and no intervention; capsaicin cream and SM at T7; capsaicin cream and placebo. Inert or capsaicin cream (1%) was applied to the T9 area. SM or placebo were performed 25 min after cream application. A series of laser stimuli were delivered on the area of cream application (1) before cream application, (2) after cream application but before SM or placebo, and (3) after SM or placebo. Capsaicin cream induced a significant increase in laser pain (p < 0.001) and laser-evoked potential amplitude (p < 0.001). However, SM did not decrease the amplification of laser pain or laser-evoked potentials by capsaicin. These results indicate that segmental SM does not reduce pain hypersensitivity and the associated pain-related brain activity in a capsaicin-heat pain model.

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.

Medial Prefrontal High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Improve Pain Modulation in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Randomized Double-blinded Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is highly disabling, but often without identifiable source. Focus has been on impaired anti-nociceptive mechanisms contributing to pain maintenance, though methods of targeting this impairment remain limited. This randomised-controlled cross-over pilot trial used active versus sham medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) for 3-consecutive days to improve descending pain inhibitory function. Twelve CLBP patients were included with an average visual analogue scale (VAS) pain intensity of 3.0 ± 1.5 and pain duration of 5.3 ± 2.6 years. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and temporal summation of pain (TSP) assessed by cuff algometry, as well as pain symptomatology (intensity, unpleasantness, quality, disability) and related psychological features (pain catastrophizing, anxiety, affect), were assessed on Day1 before 3 consecutive days of HD-tDCS sessions (each 20 minutes), at 24-hours (Day 4) and 2-weeks (Day 21) following final HD-tDCS. Blinding was successful. No significant differences in psychophysical (PPT, CPM, TSP), symptomatology or psychological outcomes were observed between active and sham HD-tDCS on Day4 and Day21. CPM-effects at Day 1 negatively correlated with change in CPM-effect at Day4 following active HD-tDCS (P = .002). Lack of efficacy was attributed to several factors, not least that patients did not display impaired CPM at baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: : ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03864822). PERSPECTIVE: Medial prefrontal HD-tDCS did not alter pain, psychological nor psychophysical outcomes, though correlational analysis suggested response may depend on baseline pain inhibitory efficacy, with best potential effects in patients with severe impairments in descending pain inhibitory mechanisms. Future work should focus on appropriate patient selection and optimising stimulation targeting.

Association of the length of time using computers and mobile devices with low back, neck and mid-back pains: findings from a birth cohort

OBJECTIVES

Neck and low back pains are the leading causes of years lived with disability, and using computers or mobile devices in excess could be risk factors for back pain. Our aim was to evaluate the association of the length of time using computers and mobile devices with neck, mid-back and low back pains and the number of regions with pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study nested in the 1993 Pelotas birth cohort with young adults aged 22 years.

METHODS

Outcomes analyzed were neck, mid-back and low back pains and the number of regions with pain. Exposures were the number of daily hours using computers and mobile devices. Crude and adjusted analyses were performed to estimate prevalence ratios using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Almost half of the sample reported having back pain, the low back pain being the most prevalent. Compared with individuals using mobile devices for less than one hour, the prevalence of neck pain was 1.41 and 1.81 times higher among individuals using mobile devices from three to seven hours and for seven or more hours per day, respectively. Neck pain prevalence was 1.47 times higher among individuals using computers for more than two hours than among those not using computers. Using mobile devices for seven hours or more was associated to 1.19 times higher prevalence of low back pain.

CONCLUSION

Using mobile devices in excess was associated to neck and low back pains, while the use of computers in excess was associated only to neck pain. It is important that guidelines are developed to recommend the adequate length of time that computers and mobile devices should be used to prevent back pain.

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.

Convergent Validity of the Central Sensitization Inventory in Chronic Whiplash-Associated Disorders; Associations with Quantitative Sensory Testing, Pain Intensity, Fatigue, and Psychosocial Factors

OBJECTIVE

Central sensitization is present in different pain conditions, including chronic whiplash-associated disorders. In the absence of a gold standard method of assessment to determine the presence of central sensitization, quantitative sensory testing is currently understood as an optimal proxy. Laboratory sensory testing is, however, not feasible in clinical practice, and the Central Sensitization Inventory was developed as an alternative. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the convergent validity of the Central Sensitization Inventory in chronic whiplash-associated patients by determining the association between the Central Sensitization Inventory and quantitative sensory testing, pain intensity, fatigue, and psychosocial factors.

METHODS

A total of 125 chronic whiplash-associated patients completed multiple questionnaires and were subjected to pressure pain thresholds and temporal summation.

RESULTS

. The Central Sensitization Inventory showed a strong association with constructs of general psychopathology, anxiety, distress, depression, and somatization in chronic whiplash-associated disorders. Moderate correlations were found with fatigue and intrusive and avoidant phenomena after a variety of traumatic events. No significant association was found between the Central Sensitization Inventory and pressure pain thresholds and temporal summation, nor between the Central Sensitization Inventory and other pain measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found that the Central Sensitization Inventory is better in identifying the psychosocial factors related to central sensitization in chronic whiplash-associated disorders than the central nervous system adaptations. Thus, the convergent validity of the Central Sensitization Inventory appears to be only partially present in chronic whiplash-associated disorders.

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.

Lack of Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia to Repetitive Back Movement in People with Chronic Low Back Pain

PURPOSE

To investigate whether people with chronic low back pain (LBP) show dysfunctional exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) in response to repeated contractions of their back muscles during a lifting task.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional observational study conducted on asymptomatic participants (n = 18) and participants with chronic LBP (n = 21), quantitative sensory testing (QST) was applied extensively over the lumbar region and a remote area before and after a repeated task that involved lifting a 5-kg box for ~7 minutes. QST included pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), thermal detection, pain thresholds, and measures of temporal summation. Topographical maps of the percentage change in PPT detected at 16 locations over the lumbar region were generated to explore regional differences and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Mean (standard deviation) PPTs measured from 16 sites over the lower back changed significantly in asymptomatic participants (+29.78 kPa [41.4]) following task completion, indicative of EIH, whereas no significant change was observed for the low back pain (LBP) group (-14.87 kPa [61.2]). No changes were detected at the remote site for either group. No changes were revealed for the thermal tests. Temporal summation data revealed decreasing pain sensitivity as the test progressed, but the test response did not change after the exercise for either group.

CONCLUSION(S)

Unlike asymptomatic individuals, participants with LBP lacked EIH over the lumbar erector spinae muscles following repeated lifting. Although these results should be considered in relation to the study limitations, particularly the absence of a control group, the findings support impaired EIH in patients with LBP.