Dataset Information

Spinal manipulation does not affect pressure pain thresholds in the absence of neuromodulators: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Measurement of pressure pain threshold (PPT) is a way to determine one of the many potential treatment effects of spinal manipulative therapy.To determine how multiple spinal manipulations administered in a single-session affected PPTs at local and distal sites in asymptomatic individuals.Participants were randomly assigned into one of three groups: Group one (n = 18) received a lumbar manipulation followed by a cervical manipulation. Group two (n = 17) received a cervical manipulation followed by a lumbar manipulation. The control group (n = 19) received two bouts of five minutes of rest. At baseline and after each intervention or rest period, each participant's PPTs were obtained using a handheld algometer. The PPTs were tested bilaterally over the lateral epicondyles of the humerus and over the mid-bellies of the upper trapezius, lumbar paraspinal, and the tibialis anterior muscles. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, and its Identifier is NCT02828501.Repeated-measures ANOVAs and Kruskal-Wallis tests showed no significant within- or between-group differences in PPT. Within-group effect sizes in the changes of PPT ranged from -.48 at the left paraspinal muscles to .24 at the left lateral humeral epicondyle. Statistical power to detect significant differences at ? of 0.05 was calculated to be 0.94.This study suggests that in young adults who do not have current or recent symptoms of spinal pain, multiple within-session treatments of cervical and lumbar spinal manipulation fail to influence PPTs. Changes in PPT that are observed in symptomatic individuals are likely to be primarily influenced by pain-related neuromodulators rather than by an isolated, mechanical effect of spinal manipulation.

SUBMITTER: Jordon MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5592341 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Spinal manipulation does not affect pressure pain thresholds in the absence of neuromodulators: a randomized controlled trial.

Jordon Max K MK Beattie Paul F PF D'Urso Sarah S Scriven Sarah S

The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 20160912 4

<h4>Background</h4>Measurement of pressure pain threshold (PPT) is a way to determine one of the many potential treatment effects of spinal manipulative therapy.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine how multiple spinal manipulations administered in a single-session affected PPTs at local and distal sites in asymptomatic individuals.<h4>Methods</h4>Participants were randomly assigned into one of three groups: Group one (<i>n</i> = 18) received a lumbar manipulation followed by a cervical manipulation. G ...[more]

PMID: 28912629

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.ObjectivesThe 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.MethodWe 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.ResultsFifty-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.ConclusionOur 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 registrationN° NCT03273868. Registered September 6, 2017.

Project description:Background contextThere have been no full-scale trials of the optimal number of visits for the care of any condition with spinal manipulation.PurposeTo identify the dose-response relationship between visits to a chiropractor for spinal manipulation and chronic low back pain (cLBP) outcomes and to determine the efficacy of manipulation by comparison with a light massage control.Study design/settingPractice-based randomized controlled trial.Patient sampleFour hundred participants with cLBP.Outcome measuresThe primary cLBP outcomes were the 100-point modified Von Korff pain intensity and functional disability scales evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included days with pain and functional disability, pain unpleasantness, global perceived improvement, medication use, and general health status.MethodsOne hundred participants with cLBP were randomized to each of four dose levels of care: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions of spinal manipulation from a chiropractor. Participants were treated three times per week for 6 weeks. At sessions when manipulation was not assigned, they received a focused light massage control. Covariate-adjusted linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 18, 24, 39, and 52 weeks.ResultsFor the primary outcomes, mean pain and disability improvement in the manipulation groups were 20 points by 12 weeks and sustainable to 52 weeks. Linear dose-response effects were small, reaching about two points per six manipulation sessions at 12 and 52 weeks for both variables (p<.025). At 12 weeks, the greatest differences from the no-manipulation control were found for 12 sessions (8.6 pain and 7.6 disability points, p<.025); at 24 weeks, differences were negligible; and at 52 weeks, the greatest group differences were seen for 18 visits (5.9 pain and 8.8 disability points, p<.025).ConclusionsThe number of spinal manipulation visits had modest effects on cLBP outcomes above those of 18 hands-on visits to a chiropractor. Overall, 12 visits yielded the most favorable results but was not well distinguished from other dose levels.

Project description:BackgroundPain 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?MethodsWe 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.ResultsTwo 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.ConclusionsWe 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 registrationClinical.Trial.gov identifier: NCT04086667 , registered 11 September 2019 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04086667.

Dataset Information

Spinal manipulation does not affect pressure pain thresholds in the absence of neuromodulators: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Spinal manipulation does not affect pressure pain thresholds in the absence of neuromodulators: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets