Honoré Margaux, Leboeuf-Yde Charlotte, Gagey Olivier
1CIAMS, University of Paris-Sud, University of Paris-Saclay, F- 91405 Orsay Cedex, France.
2CIAMS, University of Orléans, F- 45067 Orléans, France.
Chiropr Man Therap. 2018 Apr 19;26:11. doi: 10.1186/s12998-018-0181-3. eCollection 2018.
Spinal manipulation (SM) has been shown to have an effect on pain perception. More knowledge is needed on this phenomenon and it would be relevant to study its effect in asymptomatic subjects.
To compare regional effect of SM on pressure pain threshold (PPT) vs. sham, inactive control, mobilisation, another SM, and some type of physical therapy. In addition, we reported the results for the three different spinal regions.
A systematic search of literature was done using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane. Search terms were ((spinal manipulation) AND (experimental pain)); ((spinal manipulative therapy OR spinal manipulation) AND ((experimental pain OR quantitative sensory testing OR pressure pain threshold OR pain threshold)) (Final search: June 13th 2017). The inclusion criteria were SM performed anywhere in the spine; the use of PPT, PPT tested in an asymptomatic region and on the same day as the SM. Studies had to be experimental with at least one external or internal control group. Studies on only spinal motion or tenderness, other reviews, case reports, and less than 15 invited participants in each group were excluded. Evidence tables were constructed with information relevant to each research question and by spinal region. Results were reported in relation to statistical significance and were interpreted taking into account their quality.
Only 12 articles of 946 were accepted. The quality of studies was generally good. In 8 sham controlled studies, a psychologically and physiologically "credible" sham was found in only 2 studies. A significant difference was noted between SM vs. Sham, and between SM and an inactive control. No significant difference in PPT was found between SM and another SM, mobilisation or some type of physical therapy. The cervical region more often obtained significant findings as compared to studies in the thoracic or lumbar regions.
SM has an effect regionally on pressure pain threshold in asymptomatic subjects. The clinical significance of this must be quantified. More knowledge is needed in relation to the comparison of different spinal regions and different types of interventions.
脊柱推拿(SM)已被证明对疼痛感知有影响。对于这一现象需要更多了解,研究其在无症状受试者中的效果具有相关性。
比较脊柱推拿对压力疼痛阈值(PPT)的局部效应与假干预、非活性对照、松动术、另一种脊柱推拿以及某种物理治疗的效果。此外,我们报告了三个不同脊柱区域的结果。
使用PubMed、Embase和Cochrane对文献进行系统检索。检索词为((脊柱推拿)AND(实验性疼痛));((脊柱推拿疗法或脊柱推拿)AND((实验性疼痛或定量感觉测试或压力疼痛阈值或疼痛阈值))(最终检索日期:2017年6月13日)。纳入标准为在脊柱任何部位进行的脊柱推拿;使用压力疼痛阈值,在无症状区域且与脊柱推拿同一天进行压力疼痛阈值测试。研究必须为实验性研究,至少有一个外部或内部对照组。仅关于脊柱运动或压痛的研究、其他综述、病例报告以及每组少于15名受邀参与者的研究被排除。构建证据表,包含与每个研究问题相关的信息并按脊柱区域分类。结果根据统计学显著性进行报告,并结合其质量进行解读。
946篇文章中仅12篇被接受。研究质量总体良好。在8项假对照研究中,仅2项研究发现了心理和生理上“可信”的假干预。脊柱推拿与假干预之间以及脊柱推拿与非活性对照之间存在显著差异。脊柱推拿与另一种脊柱推拿、松动术或某种物理治疗之间在压力疼痛阈值上未发现显著差异。与胸椎或腰椎区域的研究相比,颈椎区域更常获得显著结果。
脊柱推拿对无症状受试者的压力疼痛阈值有局部影响。其临床意义必须进行量化。在比较不同脊柱区域和不同类型干预方面需要更多知识。