Differences in Quantitative Sensory Testing Outcomes Between Patients With Low Back Pain in Primary Care and Pain-free Controls.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) is used to test somatosensory functioning in on people with chronic LBP in secondary/tertiary health care facilities. Studies using QST-testing on LBP populations in primary care are scarce. Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) measures central sensitization (CS)-related symptoms and studies investigating the differences between QST-testing and participants with LBP with a positive and negative score on the CSI questionnaire are also rare. This case-control study investigates differences of an extensive QST-measurement between patients with acute, chronic LBP, and pain-free controls (PFCs) in primary care. Secondary aim is to investigate differences of an extensive QST-measurement between "CS" and "no-CS" group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with LBP were recruited from November 2016 to October 2019. Demographic and clinical information was collected and a standardized QST protocol was taken. Data analysis involved determining differences between groups. RESULTS: Data of 100 participants with LBP and 50 PFCs were analyzed. Heat pain thresholds, pressure pain threshold, and conditioned pain modulation local and remote were significantly moderately to relatively strongly affected by acute, chronic LBP and PFCs (P<0.001 to 0.001). Lumbar temporal summation was significantly moderately affected by acute, chronic LBP, and PFCs (P=0.001). Only pressure pain threshold showed significant difference between "CS" and "no-CS" group (P=0.001 to 0.002). DISCUSSION: Signs of enhanced nociceptive processing and disturbed top-down nociceptive modulation are apparent in people with acute and chronic LBP in primary care. Results indicate existence of central mechanisms in LBP in primary care.

It Hurts to Move! Intervention Effects and Assessment Methods for Movement-Evoked Pain in Patients With Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of musculoskeletal rehabilitation interventions on movementevoked pain and to explore the assessment methods/protocols used to evaluate movement-evoked pain in adults with musculoskeletal pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials investigating musculoskeletal rehabilitation interventions for movement-evoked pain in adults with musculoskeletal pain were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes with homogeneous data from at least 2 trials. The mean change in movementevoked pain was the primary outcome measure. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. RESULTS: Thirty-eight trials were included, and 60 different interventions were assessed. There was moderate-certainty evidence of a beneficial effect of exercise therapy compared to no treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.83, -0.47; P<.001) on movement-evoked pain in adults with musculoskeletal pain. There was low-certainty evidence of a beneficial effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation compared to no treatment (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI: -0.71, -0.21; P = .0004). There was no benefit of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation when compared to sham transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (SMD, -0.28; 95% CI: -0.60, 0.05; P = .09; moderate-certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise therapy is effective for reducing movement-evoked pain in patients with musculoskeletal pain compared to no treatment. Consider exercise therapy as the first-choice treatment for movement-evoked pain in clinical practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(6):345-374. Epub: 05 Feb 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10527.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and heat to reduce pain in a chronic low back pain population: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. The therapeutic management of patients with chronic LBP is challenging. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of heat and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation combined on pain relief in participants with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Fifty participants with chronic (≥3 months) low back pain were randomly assigned to two groups: HeatTens (n=25) and control group (n=25). Primary outcome was pain. Secondary outcomes were pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation, conditioned pain modulation, fear-avoidance and beliefs questionnaire, central sensitization inventory, quality of life, and medication use. The control group received no treatment and continued usual care. After four weeks of treatment, all measurements were repeated. RESULTS: Fifty individuals participated in this study. Significant higher pressure pain threshold measures after both 30min and 4 weeks for the lower back region and the second plantar toe were found only in the experimental group. CONCLUSION: The combination of heat and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation does not reduce pain scores in patients with chronic low back pain. Pressure pain threshold values significantly improved, showing beneficial effects of the experimental treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03643731 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03643731).

Pain Mechanisms in Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Mechanical Quantitative Sensory Testing Outcomes in People With Nonspecific Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical quantitative sensory testing (QST) assesses sensory functioning and detects functional changes in (central) nociceptive processing. It has been hypothesized that these functional changes might be apparent in people with nonspecific low back pain (LBP), although the results are mixed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to examine whether sensory function, measured with QST, was altered in people with nonspecific LBP. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Six databases were searched for relevant literature. Studies comparing mechanical QST measures involving people with subacute and chronic LBP and healthy controls were included if (1) pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), (2) temporal summation, or (3) conditioned pain modulation were reported. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. When possible, the results from different studies were pooled. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included. Scores on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale varied between 1 and 6 points. People with nonspecific LBP, compared to healthy controls, had significantly lower PPTs at remote sites and increased temporal summation at the lower back. The PPTs measured at the scapula were significantly lower in patients with nonspecific LBP than in healthy controls (pooled mean difference, 119.2 kPa; 95% confidence interval: 91.8, 146.6 kPa; P<.001). CONCLUSION: The PPT measurements at remote body parts were significantly lower in people with nonspecific LBP compared with healthy controls. Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation measurements had mixed outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 3a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(10):698-715. Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8876.

In the spine or in the brain? Recent advances in pain neuroscience applied in the intervention for low back pain.

Conservative, surgical and pharmacological strategies for chronic low back pain (CLBP) management offer at best modest effect sizes in reducing pain and related disability, indicating a need for improvement. Such improvement may be derived from applying contemporary pain neuroscience to the management of CLBP. Current interventions for people with CLBP are often based entirely on a "biomedical" or "psychological" model without consideration of information concerning underlying pain mechanisms and contemporary pain neuroscience. Here we update readers with our current understanding of pain in people with CLBP, showing that CLBP is not limited to spinal impairments, but is also characterised by brain changes, including functional connectivity reorganisation in several brain regions and increased activation in brain regions of the so-called 'pain matrix' (or 'pain connectome'). Indeed, in a subgroup of the CLBP population brain changes associated with the presence of central sensitisation are seen. Understanding the role of these brain changes in CLBP improves our understanding not only of pain symptoms, but also of prevalent CLBP associated comorbidities such as sleep disturbances and fear avoidance behaviour. Applying contemporary pain neuroscience to improve care for people with CLBP includes identifying relevant pain mechanisms to steer intervention, addressing sleep problems and optimising exercise and activity interventions. This approach includes cognitively preparing patients for exercise therapy using (therapeutic) pain neuroscience education, followed by cognition-targeted functional exercise therapy.