Key result
Planned trial evaluates spinal manipulative therapy plus stretching against stretching alone for HRV and pain.
Why the study?
It is not known whether deviations in heart rate variability are related to changes in pain perception or treatment response to spinal manipulative therapy, nor whether conditioned pain modulation predicts treatment response.
Does spinal manipulative therapy and stretching exercises improve heart rate variability and pain in patients with chronic neck pain compared to stretching exercises alone?
RCT (n=120)
Single-blind (assessor and statistician blinded)
1:1 allocation ratio in randomly permuted blocks
Yes
Does spinal manipulative therapy and stretching exercises improve heart rate variability and pain in patients with chronic neck pain compared to stretching exercises alone?
This study protocol outlines a randomized controlled trial to investigate the effects of spinal manipulative therapy on heart rate variability and pain in patients with chronic neck pain.
Planned RCT will test if spinal manipulative therapy augments stretching effects on HRV and pain in chronic neck pain; leaves open current evidence.
BACKGROUND: Recent experimental research has suggested that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) may reduce pain through modulation of the ascending pain signals and/or the central pain-regulating mechanisms. People with persistent neck pain (NP) have also been found to have disturbances in autonomic nervous system (ANS) regulation. A common way to study the ANS is to measure heart rate variability (HRV). It is not known whether deviations in HRV are related to changes in pain perception or to the treatment response to SMT. Commonly, an individual in pain will experience pain reduction when exposed to a second pain stimulus, a mechanism known as conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Patients with persistent pain have been found to have a reduced CPM reaction. It is not known whether this is predictive of treatment response to SMT. The aim of the study is to examine the effects of SMT on HRV and pain. Further, a secondary aim is to test whether a CPM test can be used to predict treatment response in a population of patients with recurrent and persistent NP. METHOD/DESIGN: A multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial will be carried out in multidisciplinary primary care clinics. This setting is chosen to minimize bias resulting from patient preference for the treatment modality and provider. The subjects are either self-referred or referred from other health care practitioners locally. The treatment modalities are two well-known interventions for NP; SMT and stretching exercises compared to stretching exercises alone. HRV will be measured using a portable heart monitor. The subjective pain experience will be investigated by assessing pain intensity and the affective quality of pain. CPM will be measured with a standardized cold pressor test. Measurements will be performed three times during a 2-week treatment series. DISCUSSION: The study will utilize normal clinical procedures, which should aid the transferability and external validity of the results. The study will provide knowledge regarding the underlying mechanisms of the effects of SMT. Furthermore, the study will examine whether a CPM test is predictive of treatment outcome in a population of patients with recurrent and persistent NP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03576846 . Registered on 3 July 2018.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bakken et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Chronic neck pain (n=120). Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and stretching exercises vs. Stretching exercises alone was evaluated on Log root-mean-squared successive differences in RR intervals (RMSSD). Spinal manipulative therapy combined with stretching exercises is being evaluated against stretching alone for its effects on heart rate variability and pain in a planned randomized controlled trial of 120 patients with chronic neck pain.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: