Search

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. However, the effects of spinal manipulation have contradictory findings compared to placebo intervention. Therefore, this study investigated the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and postural stability in people with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Second, we investigated the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pain intensity and the interference of the participant beliefs about which treatment was received in the PPT, postural stability, and pain intensity. Methods A two-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was performed. Eighty participants with nonspecific cLPB and a minimum score of 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale received one session of lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40) or simulated lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40). Primary outcomes were local and remote PPTs and postural stability. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and participant’s perceived treatment allocation. Between-group mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated the treatment effect. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to assess whether beliefs about which treatment was received influenced the outcomes. Results Participants had a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (10.5) years, and 50 (62.5%) were women. Right L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.55 (95%CI 0.19 to 0.90)], left L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.45 (95%CI 0.13 to 0.76)], right L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.41 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.78)], left L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.57 (95%CI 0.15 to 0.99)], left DT [between-group mean difference = 0.35 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.65)], and right LE [between-group mean difference = 0.34 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.60)] showed superior treatment effect in the spinal manipulation group than sham. Neither intervention altered postural stability. Self-reported pain intensity showed clinically significant decreases in both groups after the intervention. A higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group achieved more than two points of pain relief (spinal manipulation = 90%; sham = 60%). The participants’ perceived treatment allocation did not affect the outcomes. Conclusion One spinal manipulation session reduces lumbar pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability compared to a sham session in individuals with cLPB. Self-reported pain intensity lowered in both groups and a higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group reached clinically significant pain relief. The participant’s belief in receiving the manipulation did not appear to have influenced the outcomes since the adjusted model revealed similar findings.

Abstract Background Low back pain is one of the main public health concerns. Chronic low back pain (cLBP) reduces functional capacity and affects postural stability. Although health professionals widely use spinal manipulation, its immediate effect on painful sensitivity and postural stability is lacking. This study aims to verify the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold and postural stability in individuals with cLBP. Methods A two-arm, placebo-controlled clinical trial with parallel groups and examiner-blinded will be conducted with 80 participants with cLBP from an outpatient physical therapy department, randomly allocated at a 1:1 distribution. The experimental group will receive a lumbar spinal manipulation technique, and the placebo group will receive a simulated lumbar spinal manipulation. Both groups will receive one session of treatment and will be evaluated before and immediately after the intervention. The primary outcomes will be the pressure pain threshold and postural stability. Pain intensity and patient’s expectation will be assessed as a secondary outcome. The pressure pain threshold will be assessed using a pressure algometer in 6 different anatomical regions. The evaluation of postural stability will be performed in a baropodometry exam by displacing the centre of pressure. The pain intensity will be measured using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. A Likert scale will be used for the patient’s expectation about the treatment. A two-way analysis of variance will compare the effect of the interventions between groups. Discussion This study will provide insights regarding the immediate effects of spinal manipulation in patients with cLBP against a simulated spinal manipulation using objective outcomes and considering patients’ expectations regarding the treatment. Trial registration Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials RBR-3ksq2c . Registered on 13 July 2020

Abstract Background The identification of central sensitization (CS) is an important aspect in the management of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Several methods have been developed, including clinical indicators and psychophysical measures. However, whether clinical indicators coincide with the psychophysical test of CS-related sign and symptoms is still unknown. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical indicators in identifying CS-related sign and symptoms in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Methods One-hundred consecutive patients with musculoskeletal pain were included. Clinical indicators (index method) based on a combination of patient self-report pain characteristics and physical examination were used to identify the phenotype of patients with musculoskeletal pain and the predominance of the CS-related sign and symptoms. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) was assessed by the Cold Pressor Test (reference standard), which is a psychophysical test used to detect impairment of CPM. Measurements of the diagnostic accuracy were performed. Results Twenty-seven patients presented predominance of CS-related sign and symptoms in the assessment of the clinical indicators, and 20 had impairment of CPM. Clinical indicators showed high accuracy (75.0%; 95% confidence interval = 65.3 to 83.1), high specificity (80.0%; 95% confidence interval = 69.6 to 88.1), high negative predictive value (87.7%; 95% confidence interval = 81.2 to 92.1), and a relevant positive likelihood ratio (2.8, 95% confidence interval = 1.5 to 5.0) when compared to the Cold Pressor Test. Conclusion Clinical indicators demonstrated a valuable tool for detecting the impaired CPM, which is a remarkable feature of the CS-related sign and symptoms. Clinicians are encouraged to use the clinical indicators in the management of patients with musculoskeletal pain.