Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Nim CG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7903787 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Nim Casper Glissmann CG Weber Kenneth Arnold KA Kawchuk Gregory Neill GN O'Neill Søren S

Chiropractic & manual therapies 20210224 1

<h4>Background</h4>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 betwee ...[more]

PMID: 33627163

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionOur 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04086667 registered retrospectively September 11th 2019.

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:Study designTwo-year, prospective cohort data from the Japan epidemiological research of occupation-related back pain study in urban settings were used for this analysis.ObjectiveTo examine the association between aggravated low back pain and psychosocial factors among Japanese workers with mild low back pain.Summary of background dataAlthough psychosocial factors are strongly indicated as yellow flags of low back pain (LBP) leading to disability, the association between aggravated LBP and psychosocial factors has not been well assessed in Japanese workers.MethodsAt baseline, 5,310 participants responded to a self-administered questionnaire including questions about individual characteristics, ergonomic work demands, and work-related psychosocial factors (response rate: 86.5%), with 3,811 respondents completing the 1-year follow-up questionnaire. The target outcome was aggravation of mild LBP into persistent LBP during the follow-up period. Incidence was calculated for the participants with mild LBP during the past year at baseline. Logistic regression was used to explore risk factors associated with persistent LBP.ResultsOf 1,675 participants who had mild LBP during the preceding year, 43 (2.6%) developed persistent LBP during the follow-up year. Multivariate analyses adjusted for individual factors and an ergonomic factor found statistically significant or almost significant associations of the following psychosocial factors with persistent LBP: interpersonal stress at work [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.96 and 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.00-3.82], job satisfaction (OR: 2.34, 95%CI: 1.21-4.54), depression (OR: 1.92, 95%CI: 1.00-3.69), somatic symptoms (OR: 2.78, 95%CI: 1.44-5.40), support from supervisors (OR: 2.01, 95%CI: 1.05-3.85), previous sick-leave due to LBP (OR: 1.94, 95%CI: 0.98-3.86) and family history of LBP with disability (OR: 1.98, 95%CI: 1.04-3.78).ConclusionsPsychosocial factors are important risk factors for persistent LBP in urban Japanese workers. It may be necessary to take psychosocial factors into account, along with physical work demands, to reduce LBP related disability.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets