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.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the functional performance among participants with a neuropathic-like symptoms (NS) and central sensitization related signs and symptoms (CS), and their knee osteoarthritis (OA) counterparts. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted with 125 participants with knee OA (94 females, mean age 63.1 ​± ​7.4 years). Participants completed a self-reported questionnaire with personal and clinical features and musculoskeletal pain characteristics, including NS (PainDETECT), CS (Central Sensitization Inventory, CSI), and conditioned pain modulation. Self-reported functional disability (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, WOMAC) and functional mobility (Timed Up and Go, TUG) were compared among patients with NS, CS, and their knee OA counterparts using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Thirty-three (26.4%) participants had NS and CS, eighteen (14.4%) had NS, twenty-seven (21.6%) participants had CS, and 47 (37.6%) had knee OA with no NS or CS. A one-way ANOVA revealed greater functional limitation in the group with NS and CS (mean ​= ​67.5 ​± ​12.0) or NS (mean ​= ​56.7 ​± ​17.5) than the group without these symptoms (mean ​= ​32.0 ​± ​20.7) with a statistical significance difference [F(3, 121) ​= ​29.434, p ​

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 Musculoskeletal pain patients present similar pain characteristics regardless of the clinical diagnosis. PainDETECT questionnaire is useful for screening neuropathic-like symptoms in many musculoskeletal conditions. However, no previous studies compared pain phenotypes of patients with musculoskeletal pain using the painDETECT. Therefore, the current study aimed to compare the pain characteristics of patients with musculoskeletal pain classified according to the painDETECT as nociceptive pain, unclear, and neuropathic-like symptoms. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in 308 participants with musculoskeletal pain. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the participants were examined. Neuropathic-like symptoms, pain intensity, pain area, Central Sensitization-related sign and symptoms, functional limitation, and conditioned pain modulation were assessed in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Independent one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for between-group differences for the outcome measures with continuous variables and Pearson chi-square test verified between-group differences on the efficiency of the conditioned pain modulation. Results Participants had a mean age of 52.21 (±15.01) years old and 220 (71.42%) were females. One hundred seventy-three (56.16%) participants present nociceptive pain, 69 (22.40%) unclear, and 66 (21.42%) neuropathic-like symptoms. A one-way ANOVA showed differences for the pain intensity [F (2,305) = 20.097; p

Background and objectives: Neuropathic pain is common in the general population worldwide and Brazil. The painDETECT questionnaire is a notable instrument for screening on neuropathic pain. A Brazilian version of the painDETECT is necessary to broaden the possibilities of identification of neuropathic pain in the Brazilian population for the proper diagnosis and treatment. The current study aimed to perform the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the painDETECT into the Portuguese language of Brazil. Methods: A cross-cultural adaptation study was conducted in 11 stages according to standard procedures. Descriptive statistics were performed. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha test (α). Results: Four translators, 10 experts, and 30 patients participated in the study. The expert committee adapted five out of nine items (item 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10) to the Brazilian context. The pretesting phase showed good internal consistency (α = 0.74) for the nine items, including the pain pattern and the body chart domains. The Cronbach’s α of the instrument with seven descriptor items of pain was 0.83. Conclusions: The painDETECT was cross-culturally adapted into a Brazilian context and can be used to identify neuropathic components in pain of Brazilian patients. Clinical implications: PainDETECT is available for Brazilians to identify neuropathic components in pain.

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.

Advice to stay active is the primary management strategy for sciatica. Other conservative treatments such as neural management techniques may also contribute to sciatica recovery, but currently, the effects have not been robustly assessed. Thus, the aim of this study is to compare the effects of adding neural management to advice to stay active versus advice to stay active alone in improving pain intensity and functional limitation. Secondarily, to compare the effects of the experimental intervention in the sciatic neurodynamic, pain modulation, and psychosocial factors. A parallel-group, controlled, examiner-blinded superiority clinical trial randomised at a 1:1 allocation will be conducted in 210 participants with chronic sciatica. Patients will be recruited from outpatient physiotherapy clinics and community advertisements. The experimental group will receive neural mobilisation techniques and soft tissue mobilisation techniques for 30 minutes per session, 10 weekly sessions, plus advice to stay active on their activities of daily living, information on physical activity, imaging tests, and sciatica for 5 biweekly sessions lasting 25–30 minutes. The control group will receive advice to stay active only. The re-evaluation will be performed out after 5 weeks, 10 weeks, and 26 weeks after randomisation and primary endpoints will be pain intensity and functional limitation at 10 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include neuropathic symptoms, sciatic neurodynamic, pain modulation, and psychosocial factors. Adverse events and patient satisfaction will be assessed. Ethical approval has been granted from an Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee. Trial registration: Trial was prospectively registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (number: RBR-3db643c).