Dataset Information

Additional effect of pain neuroscience education to spinal manipulative therapy on pain and disability for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) demonstrates small effects on pain intensity in low back pain. Combining SMT with a psychosocial intervention like pain neuroscience education (PNE) could promote additional effect.

Objectives

To evaluate the additional effect of PNE when combined to SMT on pain intensity and low back pain-related disability in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

Method

One hundred and four patients with CLBP of both sexes aged between 18 and 55 years were treated with PNE + SMT compared to SMT alone. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity and disability post-treatment (4 weeks). Secondary outcomes were fear-avoidance beliefs, global perceived effect of improvement, and pain self-efficacy. Results were obtained immediately post-treatment and at three follow-ups (30-days, 90-days, and 180-days).

Results

No significant between-group difference was observed for pain intensity and disability post-treatment. In contrast, our results showed a significantly longer additional effect for the group treated with SMT + PNE for the following outcomes: pain intensity (change baseline to 90 day follow-up = -0.90 [95% CI= -1.76, -0.4] and change baseline to 180 day follow-up = -1.19 [95% CI= -2.06, -0.32]) and low back pain-related disability, global perceived effect of improvement and pain self-efficacy (180th day follow-up).

Conclusion

The results of this trial suggest the addition of PNE to SMT did not bring any additional effect on pain intensity and disability in the short term, but SMT + PNE can result in longer-lasting effects in patients with CLBP and that such an effect could be related to a possible mediator effect of pain self-efficacy.

SUBMITTER: Tavares FAG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10598742 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep-Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Additional effect of pain neuroscience education to spinal manipulative therapy on pain and disability for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Tavares Fernando Augusto Gonçalves FAG Rossiter João Vitor Alves JVA Lima Gabriela Caroline Leandro GCL de Oliveira Letícia Gomes LG Cavalcante Witor Souza WS Ávila Mariana Arias MA George Steven Zachary SZ Chaves Thais Cristina TC

Brazilian journal of physical therapy 20230901 5

<h4>Background</h4>Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) demonstrates small effects on pain intensity in low back pain. Combining SMT with a psychosocial intervention like pain neuroscience education (PNE) could promote additional effect.<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the additional effect of PNE when combined to SMT on pain intensity and low back pain-related disability in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).<h4>Method</h4>One hundred and four patients with CLBP of both sexes aged between 18 ...[more]

PMID: 37866011

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Low back pain (LBP) is a common disabling condition in older adults which often limits physical function and diminishes quality of life. Two clinical trials in older adults have shown spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) results in similar or small improvements relative to medical care; however, the effectiveness of adding SMT or rehabilitative exercise to home exercise is unclear. Methods:We conducted a randomized clinical trial assessing the comparative effectiveness of adding SMT or supervised rehabilitative exercise to home exercise in adults 65 or older with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Treatments were provided over 12-weeks and self-report outcomes were collected at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The primary outcome was pain severity. Secondary outcomes included back disability, health status, medication use, satisfaction with care, and global improvement. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes. The primary analysis included longitudinal outcomes in the short (week 4-12) and long-term (week 4-52). An omnibus test assessing differences across all groups over the year was used to control for multiplicity. Secondary analyses included outcomes at each time point and responder analyses. This study was funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. Results:241 participants were randomized and 230 (95%) provided complete primary outcome data. The primary analysis showed group differences in pain over the one-year were small and not statistically significant. Pain severity was reduced by 30 to 40% after treatment in all 3 groups with the largest difference (eight percentage points) favoring SMT and home exercise over home exercise alone. Group differences at other time points ranged from 0 to 6 percentage points with no consistent pattern favoring one treatment. One-year post-treatment pain reductions diminished in all three groups. Secondary self-report outcomes followed a similar pattern with no important group differences, except satisfaction with care, where the two combination groups were consistently superior to home exercise alone. Conclusions:Adding spinal manipulation or supervised rehabilitative exercise to home exercise alone does not appear to improve pain or disability in the short- or long-term for older adults with chronic low back pain, but did enhance satisfaction with care. Trial registration:NCT00269321.

Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition. Identifying subgroups of patients afflicted with CLBP is a current research priority, for which a classification system based on pain mechanisms was proposed. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is recommended for the management of CLBP. Yet, little data are available regarding its mechanisms of action, making it difficult to match this intervention to the patients who may benefit the most. It was suggested that SMT may influence mechanisms associated with central sensitisation. Therefore, classifying patients with CLBP according to central sensitisation mechanisms may help predict their response to SMT.Methods and analysisThis protocol describes a randomised placebo-controlled trial aiming to examine which variables linked to central sensitisation may help predict the clinical response to SMT in a cohort of patients with CLBP. One hundred patients with chronic primary low back pain will be randomised to receive 12 sessions of SMT or placebo SMT over a 4-week period. Pain intensity and disability will be assessed as primary outcomes after completing the 4-week treatment (primary endpoint), and at 4-week and 12-week follow-ups. Baseline values of two pain questionnaires, lumbar pressure pain thresholds, concentrations of an inflammatory cytokine and expectations of pain relief will be entered as predictors of the response to SMT in a multiple regression model. Changes in these variables after treatment will be used in a second multiple regression model. The reference values of these predictors will be measured from 50 age and sex-matched healthy controls to allow interpretation of values in patients. Mixed analyses of variance will also be conducted to compare the primary outcomes and the predictors between groups (SMT vs placebo) over time (baseline vs post-treatment).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was granted by the Fundación Jiménez Díaz Clinical Research Ethics Committee.Trial registration numberNCT05162924.

Project description:ImportanceLow back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Manual therapy is a common treatment of LBP, yet few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of thrust (spinal manipulation) vs nonthrust (spinal mobilization) techniques.ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization at reducing pain and disability compared with a placebo control group (sham cold laser) in a cohort of young adults with chronic LBP.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-blinded (investigator-blinded), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with 3 treatment groups was conducted at the Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute at Ohio University from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2017. Of 4903 adult patients assessed for eligibility, 4741 did not meet inclusion criteria, and 162 patients with chronic LBP qualified for randomization to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Recruitment began on June 1, 2013, and the primary completion date was August 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2017, to January 20, 2020.InterventionsParticipants received 6 treatment sessions of (1) spinal manipulation, (2) spinal mobilization, or (3) sham cold laser therapy (placebo) during a 3-week period.Main outcomes and measuresCoprimary outcome measures were the change from baseline in Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score over the last 7 days and the change in disability assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) 48 to 72 hours after completion of the 6 treatments.ResultsA total of 162 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.0 [6.2] years; 92 women [57%]) with chronic LBP (mean [SD] NPRS score, 4.3 [2.6] on a 1-10 scale, with higher scores indicating greater pain) were randomized. Fifty-four participants were randomized to the spinal manipulation group, 54 to the spinal mobilization group, and 54 to the placebo group. There were no significant group differences for sex, age, body mass index, duration of LBP symptoms, depression, fear avoidance, current pain, average pain over the last 7 days, and self-reported disability. At the primary end point, there was no significant difference in change in pain scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (0.24 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.86]; P = .45), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.65 to 0.59]; P = .92), or spinal mobilization and placebo (-0.26 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.85]; P = .39). There was no significant difference in change in self-reported disability scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (-1.00 [95% CI, -2.27 to 0.36]; P = .14), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.07 [95% CI, -1.43 to 1.29]; P = .92) or spinal mobilization and placebo (0.93 [95% CI, -0.41 to 2.29]; P = .17).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, neither spinal manipulation nor spinal mobilization appeared to be effective treatments for mild to moderate chronic LBP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01854892.

Dataset Information

Additional effect of pain neuroscience education to spinal manipulative therapy on pain and disability for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Background

Objectives

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Additional effect of pain neuroscience education to spinal manipulative therapy on pain and disability for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets