Dataset Information

Evidence for decreased Neurologic Pain Signature activation following thoracic spinal manipulation in healthy volunteers and participants with neck pain.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND CONTEXT:Spinal manipulation (SM) is a common treatment for neck and back pain, theorized to mechanically affect the spine leading to therapeutic mechanical changes. The link between specific mechanical effects and clinical improvement is not well supported. SM's therapeutic action may instead be partially mediated within the central nervous system. PURPOSE:To introduce brain-based models of pain for spinal pain and manual therapy research, characterize the distributed central mechanisms of SM, and advance the preliminary validation of brain-based models as potential clinical biomarkers of pain. STUDY DESIGN:Secondary analysis of two functional magnetic resonance imaging studies investigating the effect of thoracic SM on pain-related brain activity: A non-controlled, non-blinded study in healthy volunteers (Study 1, n?=?10, 5 females, and mean age?=?31.2?±?10.0 years) and a randomized controlled study in participants with acute to subacute neck pain (Study 2, n?=?24, 16 females, mean age?=?38.0?±?15.1 years). METHODS:Functional magnetic resonance imaging was performed during noxious mechanical stimulation of the right index finger cuticle pre- and post-intervention. The effect of SM on pain-related activity was studied within brain regions defined by the Neurologic Pain Signature (NPS) that are predictive of physical pain. RESULTS:In Study 1, evoked mechanical pain (p < 0.001) and NPS activation (p?=?0.010) decreased following SM, and the changes in evoked pain and NPS activation were correlated (r_RM²?=?0.418, p?=?0.016). Activation within the NPS subregions of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC, p?=?0.012) and right secondary somatosensory cortex/operculum (rS2_Op, p?=?0.045) also decreased following SM, and evoked pain was correlated with dACC activity (r_RM²?=?0.477, p?=?0.019). In Study 2, neck pain (p?=?0.046) and NPS (p?=?0.033) activation decreased following verum but not sham SM. Associations between evoked pain, neck pain, and NPS activation, were not significant and less clear, possibly due to inadequate power, methodological limitations, or other confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS:The findings provide preliminary evidence that SM may alter the processing of pain-related brain activity within specific pain-related brain regions and support the use of brain-based models as clinical biomarkers of pain.

SUBMITTER: Weber Ii KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6831903 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence for decreased Neurologic Pain Signature activation following thoracic spinal manipulation in healthy volunteers and participants with neck pain.

Weber Ii Kenneth A KA Wager Tor D TD Mackey Sean S Elliott James M JM Liu Wen-Ching WC Sparks Cheryl L CL

NeuroImage. Clinical 20191018

<h4>Background context</h4>Spinal manipulation (SM) is a common treatment for neck and back pain, theorized to mechanically affect the spine leading to therapeutic mechanical changes. The link between specific mechanical effects and clinical improvement is not well supported. SM's therapeutic action may instead be partially mediated within the central nervous system.<h4>Purpose</h4>To introduce brain-based models of pain for spinal pain and manual therapy research, characterize the distributed c ...[more]

PMID: 31670070

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsThoracic spine manipulation (TSM) increases the thoracic spine's range of motion (ROM), effectively reducing pain intensity and disability in patients with mechanical neck pain. We aimed to determine the effect of TSM on neck pain intensity and functional impairment in patients classified under the "mobility" category in Childs' classification.MethodsIn this randomized controlled trial, patients with mechanical neck pain who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to either the TSM (n = 21) or sham manipulation (n = 20) group. The primary outcomes were pain during neck rotation and subjective improvement assessed using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Global Rating of Change (GROC), respectively. The secondary outcomes were NPRS at rest, disability (assessed using the Neck Disability Index [NDI]), and ROM of the cervical and thoracic spine rotation. Outcome measurements were performed at baseline, immediately after treatment, 1 week after treatment, and at the 4-week follow-up. Linear mixed models were used to analyze the NPRS, NDI, and ROM. The GROC was analyzed using a chi-square test for the percentage recording ≥+4; the means of each group were compared using an unpaired t-test.ResultsThe NPRS with neck rotation, neck and thoracic ROM, and NDI showed significant interactions between the groups. The NPRS with neck rotation was significantly lower in the TSM group than in the sham group at all time points after the treatment (p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups in the proportion showing moderate (≥+4) improvement according to the GROC; however, there was a significant difference in the mean values (p = 0.013).ConclusionIncorporating TSM into treatment protocols may improve clinical outcomes in patients with neck pain, potentially leading to better pain management and functional recovery. Therefore, physiotherapists should consider TSM as a viable and effective intervention to improve patient outcomes in neck pain rehabilitation.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the role of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on pain and disability in the management of mechanical neck pain (MNP).Data sourcesElectronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Pedro, Embase, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in January 2018.Study selectionEligible studies were completed RCTs, written in English, had at least 2 groups with one group receiving TSM, had at least one measure of pain or disability, and included patients with MNP of any duration. The search identified 1717 potential articles, with 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsMethodological quality was evaluated independently by two authors using the guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Pooled analyses were analyzed using a random-effects model with inverse variance methods to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals for pain (VAS 0-100mm, NPRS 0-10pts; 0 = no pain) and disability (NDI and NPQ 0-100%; 0 = no disability).ResultsAcross the included studies, there was increased risk of bias for inadequate provider and participant blinding. The GRADE approach demonstrated an overall level of evidence ranging from very low to moderate. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to thoracic or cervical mobilization revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.63; 95% CI: -21.79, -5.46) and disability (MD -9.93; 95% CI: -14.38, -5.48). Meta-analysis that compared TSM to standard care revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.21; 95% CI: -21.87, -4.55) and disability (MD -11.36; 95% CI: -18.93, -3.78) at short-term follow-up, and a significant effect for disability (MD -4.75; 95% CI: -6.54, -2.95) at long-term follow-up. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to cervical spine manipulation revealed a non-significant effect (MD 3.43; 95% CI: -7.26, 14.11) for pain without a distinction between immediate and short-term follow-up.LimitationsThe greatest limitation in this systematic review was the heterogeneity among the studies making it difficult to assess the true clinical benefit, as well as the overall level of quality of evidence.ConclusionsTSM has been shown to be more beneficial than thoracic mobilization, cervical mobilization, and standard care in the short-term, but no better than cervical manipulation or placebo thoracic spine manipulation to improve pain and disability.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017068287.

Project description:Persistent pain is measured by means of self-report, the sole reliance on which hampers diagnosis and treatment. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) holds promise for identifying objective measures of pain, but brain measures that are sensitive and specific to physical pain have not yet been identified.In four studies involving a total of 114 participants, we developed an fMRI-based measure that predicts pain intensity at the level of the individual person. In study 1, we used machine-learning analyses to identify a pattern of fMRI activity across brain regions--a neurologic signature--that was associated with heat-induced pain. The pattern included the thalamus, the posterior and anterior insulae, the secondary somatosensory cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, the periaqueductal gray matter, and other regions. In study 2, we tested the sensitivity and specificity of the signature to pain versus warmth in a new sample. In study 3, we assessed specificity relative to social pain, which activates many of the same brain regions as physical pain. In study 4, we assessed the responsiveness of the measure to the analgesic agent remifentanil.In study 1, the neurologic signature showed sensitivity and specificity of 94% or more (95% confidence interval [CI], 89 to 98) in discriminating painful heat from nonpainful warmth, pain anticipation, and pain recall. In study 2, the signature discriminated between painful heat and nonpainful warmth with 93% sensitivity and specificity (95% CI, 84 to 100). In study 3, it discriminated between physical pain and social pain with 85% sensitivity (95% CI, 76 to 94) and 73% specificity (95% CI, 61 to 84) and with 95% sensitivity and specificity in a forced-choice test of which of two conditions was more painful. In study 4, the strength of the signature response was substantially reduced when remifentanil was administered.It is possible to use fMRI to assess pain elicited by noxious heat in healthy persons. Future studies are needed to assess whether the signature predicts clinical pain. (Funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and others.).

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic effects of manual spinal manipulation (MSM) and instrumental spinal manipulation (ISM) on the vertebral artery (VA) and internal carotid artery (ICA) in participants with chronic nonspecific neck pain (NNP).MethodsThirty volunteers aged 20 to 40 years old with NNP over 3 months duration were included. Participants were randomly divided into the following 2 groups: (1) MSM group (n = 15) and (2) ISM group (n = 15). Ipsilateral (intervention side) and contralateral (opposite side of intervention) VAs and ICAs were evaluated using spectral color Doppler ultrasound before and immediately after manipulation. Measurements were recorded by visualizing the ICA carotid sinus (C4 level) and the VA at the V3 segment (C1-C2 level). The blood flow parameters of peak systolic velocity (PSV), end-diastolic velocity, resistive index, and volume flow (only for VA) were evaluated. The spinal segment, in which biomechanical aberrant movement was detected by palpation in the upper cervical spine, was manually manipulated in the MSM group. The same methodology was performed for the ISM group using an Activator V instrument (Activator Methods).ResultsIntragroup analysis exhibited no statistically significant difference between the MSM and ISM groups in terms of PSV, end-diastolic velocity, resistive index of ipsilateral and contralateral ICA and VA, in addition to volume flow of both VAs preintervention and postintervention (P > .05). Within the intergroup analysis, there was a significant difference in ipsilateral ICA PSV (P = .031) (preintervention vs postintervention difference was -7.9 ± 17.2 cm/s [95% confidence interval, -17.4 to 1.6] in the ISM group and 8.7 ± 22.5 cm/s [95% confidence interval, -3.6 to 21.2]) in the MSM group (P < .05). Other parameters did not show any significant difference (P > .05).ConclusionManual and instrumental spinal manipulations applied to the upper cervical spine in participants with chronic NNP did not appear to alter blood flow parameters of the VAs and ICAs.

Project description:Introduction: The management of musculoskeletal disorders is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Manual therapies, such as spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), are often recommended as an adjunct treatment and appear to have demonstrable effects on pain and short-term disability in several spinal conditions. However, no definitive mechanism that can explain these effects has been identified. Identifying relevant prognostic factors is therefore recommended for people with back pain. Objective: The main purpose of this study was to identify short-term candidate prognostic factors for clinically significant responses in pain, disability and global perceived change (GPC) following a spinal manipulation treatment in patients with non-specific thoracic back pain. Methods: Patients seeking care for thoracic spine pain were invited to participate in the study. Pain levels were recorded at baseline, post-intervention, and 1 week after a single session of SMT. Disability levels were collected at baseline and at 1-week follow-up. GPC was collected post-intervention and at 1-week follow-up. Biomechanical parameters of SMT, expectations for improvement in pain and disability, kinesiophobia, anxiety levels as well as perceived comfort of spinal manipulative therapy were assessed. Analysis: Differences in baseline characteristics were compared between patients categorized as responders or non-responders based on their pain level, disability level, and GPC at each measurement time point. Binary logistic regression was calculated if the statistical significance level of group comparisons (responder vs. non-responders) was equal to, or <0.2 for candidate prognostic factors. Results: 107 patients (62 females and 45 males) were recruited. Mean peak force averaged 450.8 N with a mean thrust duration of 134.9 ms. Post-intervention, comfort was associated with pain responder status (p < 0.05) and GPC responder status (p < 0.05), while expectation of disability improvement was associated with GPC responder status (p < 0.05). At follow-up, comfort and expectation of pain improvement were associated with responder GPC status (p < 0.05). No association was found between responder pain, disability or GPC status and biomechanical parameters of SMT at any time point. Discussion: No specific dosage of SMT was associated with short-term clinical responses to treatment. However, expectations of improvement and patient comfort during SMT were associated with a positive response to treatment.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence indicates that supervised home exercises, combined or not with manual therapy, can be beneficial for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (NCNP). The objective of the study is to investigate the efficacy of preventive spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to a no treatment group in NCNP patients. Another objective is to assess the efficacy of SMT with and without a home exercise program.MethodsNinety-eight patients underwent a short symptomatic phase of treatment before being randomly allocated to either an attention-group (n = 29), a SMT group (n = 36) or a SMT + exercise group (n = 33). The preventive phase of treatment, which lasted for 10 months, consisted of meeting with a chiropractor every two months to evaluate and discuss symptoms (attention-control group), 1 monthly SMT session (SMT group) or 1 monthly SMT session combined with a home exercise program (SMT + exercise group). The primary and secondary outcome measures were represented by scores on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), active cervical ranges of motion (cROM), the neck disability index (NDI) and the Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ). Exploratory outcome measures were scored on the Fear-avoidance Behaviour Questionnaire (FABQ) and the SF-12 Questionnaire.ResultsOur results show that, in the preventive phase of the trial, all 3 groups showed primary and secondary outcomes scores similar to those obtain following the non-randomised, symptomatic phase. No group difference was observed for the primary, secondary and exploratory variables. Significant improvements in FABQ scores were noted in all groups during the preventive phase of the trial. However, no significant change in health related quality of life (HRQL) was associated with the preventive phase.ConclusionsThis study hypothesised that participants in the combined intervention group would have less pain and disability and better function than participants from the 2 other groups during the preventive phase of the trial. This hypothesis was not supported by the study results. Lack of a treatment specific effect is discussed in relation to the placebo and patient provider interactions in manual therapies. Further research is needed to delineate the specific and non-specific effects of treatment modalities to prevent unnecessary disability and to minimise morbidity related to NCNP. Additional investigation is also required to identify the best strategies for secondary and tertiary prevention of NCNP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00566930.

Project description:Spinal mobilisation/manipulation is a common intervention for spinal pain, yet the working mechanisms are largely unknown. A randomised placebo-controlled trial was conducted to (1) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisation/manipulation and placebo spinal mobilisation/manipulation; (2) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses of those with a good outcome with those of a poor outcome following spinal mobilisation/manipulation; and (3) explore the association between neuroimmune responses and pain reduction. One hundred patients were randomly allocated to spinal mobilisation/manipulation or a placebo mobilisation/manipulation. Primary outcomes were whole blood in-vitro evoked released concentrations of IL-1β and TNF-α measured 10 min and 2 h after the intervention. Immediate effects were studied because successful mobilisation/manipulation is often associated with immediate pain reduction, and immediate neuroimmune responses are less affected by potential confounders than long-term responses. Secondary outcomes included multiple systemic inflammatory marker concentrations, phenotypic analysis of white blood cells and clinical outcomes. Outcomes were compared between the experimental and placebo group, and between people with a good and poor outcome in the experimental group. Estimates of intervention effects were based on intention-to-treat analyses, by using linear mixed-effect models. Although there was a substantial difference in pain reduction between groups (mean (SD) difference visual analogue scale: 30 (21) mm at 10 min and 32 (21) mm at 2 h (p < 0.001) in favour of mobilisation/manipulation, there were no differences in primary outcomes between groups or between people with a good and poor outcome (p ≥ 0.10). In conclusion, possible neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisations/manipulation cannot be identified at a systemic level. Future research may focus on longer treatment duration and more localised neuroimmune responses.

Project description:BackgroundSpinal manipulative therapy (SMT) includes biomechanical parameters that vary between clinicians, but for which the influence on the therapy clinical effects is unknown. This parallel-randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the effect of SMT biomechanical parameters on the outcomes of participants with chronic thoracic pain (CTP) following three treatment sessions (follow-up at one week).MethodsAdults reporting CTP (pain within the evaluated region [T6 to T8] for ≥3 months) were asked to participate in a four-session trial. At the first session, participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups (different SMT doses) or the control group (no SMT). During the first three sessions, one SMT was executed at T7 for the experimental groups, while a 5-min rest was provided to the control group. SMT were delivered through an apparatus using a servo-controlled linear actuator motor and doses consisted of peak forces, impulse durations, and rates of force application set at 135 N, 125 ms and 920 N/s (group 1), at 250 N, 125 ms and 1840 N/s (group 2), and at 250 N, 250 ms, 920 N/s (group 3). Disability and pain intensity were evaluated at each session (primary outcomes). Spinal stiffness was assessed before-and-after each SMT/rest and at follow-up. Tenderness and muscle activity were evaluated during each spinal stiffness trial. Improvement was evaluated at follow-up. Differences in outcomes between groups and sessions were evaluated as well as factors associated with clinical improvement.ResultsEighty-one participants were recruited and 17, 20, 20 participants of the three experimental groups and 18 of the control group completed the protocol. In exception of higher pain intensity at baseline in the control group, no between-group differences were found for any of the outcomes. A decrease in pain intensity, disability, spinal stiffness, and tenderness during spinal stiffness were observed (p-values< 0.05). At follow-up, 24% of participants were classified as 'improved'. Predictors of improvement were a greater decrease in pain intensity and in tenderness (p-values< 0.05).ConclusionsIn an experimental setting, the delivery of a SMT does not lead to significantly different outcomes in participants with CTP than a control condition (spinal stiffness assessment). Studies are still required to explore the mechanisms underlying SMT effects.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03063177 , registered 24 February 2017).

Dataset Information

Evidence for decreased Neurologic Pain Signature activation following thoracic spinal manipulation in healthy volunteers and participants with neck pain.

Publications

Evidence for decreased Neurologic Pain Signature activation following thoracic spinal manipulation in healthy volunteers and participants with neck pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets