Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of provoking pain with manual therapy on pain processing in university students with recurrent or chronic neck pain.
The mechanical stimulus produced in manual therapy (MT) techniques elicits neurophysiological responses within the peripheral and central nervous system responsible for pain inhibition. Almost all types of MT elicit a neurophysiological response that is associated with the descending pain modulation circuit. But it has not been demonstrated whether this inhibition occurs through a conditioned pain modulation mechanism generated by the pain that manual therapy techniques may elicit in the patient.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Painful Manual Therapy | Experimental | Manual therapy treatment shall be carried out at a high intensity that causes pain to the patient. The aim is to provoke a medium intensity pain to the patient of 5/10 in the NRS. The physiotherapist will ask every 30 seconds the pain provoked by the treatment with the numeric rating scale (NRS) and the patient will give continuous feedback. Based on this, the physiotherapist will adapt the intensity of the treatment to provoke a medium intensity pain. |
|
| Painless Manual Therapy | Active Comparator | Manual therapy treatment shall be performed at a low intensity that does not cause pain to the patient. The aim is for the patient to report a pain intensity of 0/10 in NRS throughout treatment. The physiotherapist will ask every 30 seconds the pain provoked by the treatment with NRS and the patient will give continuous feedback. Based on this, the physiotherapist will adapt the intensity of the treatment to be performed below the pain threshold. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manual Therapy | Other |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change from Baseline in Tibialis Anterior Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) to immediate post-intervention | PPTs will be assessed bilaterally (the mean between both sides will be used for analysis) over the tibialis anterior muscle (remote pain-free area) using a digital algometer (Wagner instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA). Participants will be instructed to say "stop" when the pressure sensation becomes painful. The average of two trials for each side will be performed for analysis. The algometer pressure for assessment will be gradually increased at a rate of 1kg/second. Data will be collected in kg/cm2. | At baseline and immediately after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in extensor carpi ulnaris PPT to immediate post-intervention | PPTs will be assessed bilaterally (the mean between both sides will be used for analysis) over the extensor carpi ulnaris muscle (remote pain-free area) using a digital algometer (Model FPX, Wagner instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA). Participants will be instructed to say "stop" when the pressure sensation becomes painful. The average of two trials for each side will be performed for analysis. The algometer pressure for assessment will be gradually increased at a rate of 1kg/second. Data will be collected in kg/cm2. | At baseline and immediately after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in upper trapezius PPT to immediate post-intervention | PPTs will be assessed bilaterally (the mean between both sides will be used for analysis) over the extensor upper trapezius muscle (symptomatic area) using a digital algometer (Model FPX, Wagner instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA). Participants will be instructed to say "stop" when the pressure sensation becomes painful. The average of two trials for each side will be performed for analysis. The algometer pressure for assessment will be gradually increased at a rate of 1kg/second. Data will be collected in kg/cm2. | At baseline and immediately after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in spinous process of C7 PPT to immediate post-intervention |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change from Baseline in Pain Intensity by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) to immediate post-intervention | The NRS measures the pain intensity using a 11-point scale. Rank from 0 to 10, with the 0-end point labeled with "no pain" and the 10-end point labeled as "worst imaginable pain". | At baseline and immediately after the intervention |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Josué Fernández Carnero, PhD | Universidad Rey Juan Carlos | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Universidad Rey Juan Carlos | Alcorcón | Madrid | 28047 | Spain |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29034802 | Background | Bialosky JE, Beneciuk JM, Bishop MD, Coronado RA, Penza CW, Simon CB, George SZ. Unraveling the Mechanisms of Manual Therapy: Modeling an Approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018 Jan;48(1):8-18. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7476. Epub 2017 Oct 15. | |
| 26788367 | Background | Vigotsky AD, Bruhns RP. The Role of Descending Modulation in Manual Therapy and Its Analgesic Implications: A Narrative Review. Pain Res Treat. 2015;2015:292805. doi: 10.1155/2015/292805. Epub 2015 Dec 16. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D019547 | Neck Pain |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D010146 | Pain |
| D009461 | Neurologic Manifestations |
| D012816 | Signs and Symptoms |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D026201 | Musculoskeletal Manipulations |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000529 | Complementary Therapies |
| D013812 | Therapeutics |
| D026741 | Physical Therapy Modalities |
| D012046 | Rehabilitation |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
PPT will be assessed over the spinous process of C7 (cervical innervated-related area) using a digital algometer (Model FPX, Wagner instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA). Participants will be instructed to say "stop" when the pressure sensation becomes painful. The average of two trials will be performed for analysis. The algometer pressure for assessment will be gradually increased at a rate of 1kg/second. Data will be collected in kg/cm2.
| At baseline and immediately after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Pain Intensity by NRS to 4 hours post-intervention |
The NRS measures the pain intensity using a 11-point scale. Rank from 0 to 10, with the 0-end point labeled with "no pain" and the 10-end point labeled as "worst imaginable pain". |
| At baseline and 4 hours after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Pain Intensity by NRS to 1 day post-intervention | The NRS measures the pain intensity using a 11-point scale. Rank from 0 to 10, with the 0-end point labeled with "no pain" and the 10-end point labeled as "worst imaginable pain". | At baseline and 1 day after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Pain Intensity by NRS to 2 days post-intervention | The NRS measures the pain intensity using a 11-point scale. Rank from 0 to 10, with the 0-end point labeled with "no pain" and the 10-end point labeled as "worst imaginable pain". | At baseline and 2 days after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Pain Intensity by NRS to 3 days post-intervention | The NRS measures the pain intensity using a 11-point scale. Rank from 0 to 10, with the 0-end point labeled with "no pain" and the 10-end point labeled as "worst imaginable pain". | At baseline and 3 days after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Pain Intensity by NRS to 4 days post-intervention | The NRS measures the pain intensity using a 11-point scale. Rank from 0 to 10, with the 0-end point labeled with "no pain" and the 10-end point labeled as "worst imaginable pain". | At baseline and 4 days after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Pain Intensity by NRS to 5 days post-intervention | The NRS measures the pain intensity using a 11-point scale. Rank from 0 to 10, with the 0-end point labeled with "no pain" and the 10-end point labeled as "worst imaginable pain". | At baseline and 5 days after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Pain Intensity by NRS to 6 days post-intervention | The NRS measures the pain intensity using a 11-point scale. Rank from 0 to 10, with the 0-end point labeled with "no pain" and the 10-end point labeled as "worst imaginable pain". | At baseline and 6 days after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Pain Intensity by NRS to 7 days post-intervention | The NRS measures the pain intensity using a 11-point scale. Rank from 0 to 10, with the 0-end point labeled with "no pain" and the 10-end point labeled as "worst imaginable pain". | At baseline and 7 days after the intervention |
| Self-perceived improvement by Global Rating of Change (GROC scale) immediately after the intervention | The GROC assesses self-perceived improvement on a scale from -7 (a very great deal worse) to +7 (a very great deal better). | Immediately after the intervention |
| Self-perceived improvement by Global Rating of Change (GROC scale) 7 days after the intervention | The GROC assesses self-perceived improvement on a scale from -7 (a very great deal worse) to +7 (a very great deal better). | 7 days after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Parallel Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) to immediate post-intervention | To evaluate conditioned pain modulation (CPM), a handheld pressure algometer will be used as the test stimulus to evaluate the PPT at the nail bed of the thumb of the symptomatic side before and during application of a conditioning stimulus. Ischemic muscle pain will be used as the conditioning stimulus using a sphygmomanometer. The sphygmomanometer will be applied around the upper arm of the asymptomatic side, with its lower rim 3 cm proximal to the cubital fossa. The cuff was inflated to 260 mmHg and maintained until the subject perceived a 7/10 pain on the NRS. The CPM will be the result of the PPT during the conditioning stimulus minus the PPT before the conditioning stimulus. | At baseline and immediately after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Sequential Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) to immediate post-intervention | To evaluate conditioned pain modulation (CPM), a handheld pressure algometer (Model FPX, Wagner instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA) will be used as the test stimulus to evaluate the PPT at the nail bed of the thumb of the symptomatic side before and 1 minute after application of a conditioning stimulus. Ischemic muscle pain will be used as the conditioning stimulus using a sphygmomanometer. The sphygmomanometer will be applied around the upper arm of the asymptomatic side, with its lower rim 3 cm proximal to the cubital fossa. The cuff was inflated to 260 mmHg and maintained until the subject perceived a 7/10 pain on the NRS. The CPM will be the result of the PPT after the conditioning stimulus minus the PPT before the conditioning stimulus. | At baseline and immediately after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Termporal Summation of Pain (TSP) to immediate post-intervention | TSP will be elicited with 10 applications of the algometer (Model FPX, Wagner instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA) at the individual PPT intensity perceived at the nail bed of the thumb of the asymptomatic side. For each pulse, the pressure will be increased at a rate of approximately 2 kg/second to the previously determined PPT intensity. Pulses will be presented with an interstimulus interval of 1 second because this has previously been shown to be optimal for inducing TSP with pressure pain. Before application of the first pressure pulse, subjects were instructed to manually rate the pain intensity of the first and 10th pulse with a NRS. The TSP will be calculated as the difference between the pain intensity of the tenth stimulus minus the first stimulus. | At baseline and immediately after the intervention |
| Change from Baseline in Cold Pain Intensity to immediate post-intervention | Cold pain intensity will be evaluated with the subject resting on a chair with the ice application test. Testing will be conducted on the anterior skin of the right forearm. For the ice application test, the ice pack will be held on the skin for 10 s. After 10 s of ice application, subjects will be instructed to rate the intensity of pain on NRS. The procedure will be repeated three times to obtain a mean value, with a 60 s rest period between measures to avoid summation of pain. | At baseline and immediately after the intervention |
| 141644 | Background | Melzack R. Prolonged relief of pain by brief, intense transcutaneous somatic stimulation. Pain. 1975 Dec;1(4):357-373. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(75)90073-1. |
| 13363246 | Background | WAND-TETLEY JI. Historical methods of counter-irritation. Ann Phys Med. 1956 Jul;3(3):90-9. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/iii.3.90. No abstract available. |