Back2Action: effectiveness of physiotherapy blended with eHealth consisting of pain education and behavioural activation versus physiotherapy alone—protocol for a pragmatic randomised clinical trial for people with subacute or persistent spinal pain

IntroductionPsychosocial factors predict recovery in patients with spinal pain. Several of these factors are modifiable, such as depression and anxiety. However, primary care physiotherapists who typically manage these patients indicate that they do not feel sufficiently competent and equipped to address these factors optimally. We developed an eHealth intervention with a focus on pain education and behavioural activation to support physiotherapists in managing psychosocial factors in patients with spinal pain. This paper describes the protocol for a pragmatic randomised clinical trial, which evaluates the effectiveness of this eHealth intervention blended with physiotherapy compared with physiotherapy alone.Methods and analysisParticipants with non-specific low back pain and/or neck pain for at least 6 weeks who also have psychosocial risk factors associated with the development or maintenance of persistent pain will be recruited in a pragmatic multicentre cluster randomised clinical trial. The experimental intervention consists of physiotherapy blended with six online modules of pain education and behavioural activation. The control intervention consists of usual care physiotherapy. The primary outcomes are disability (Oswestry Disability Index for low back pain and Neck Disability Index for neck pain) and perceived effect (Global Perceived Effect). Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at 2, 6 and 12 months after baseline. The results will be analysed using linear mixed models.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of VU Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2017.286). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals, at national and international conferences, and in diverse media to share the findings with patients, clinicians and the public.Trial registration numberNL 5941; The Netherlands Trial Register.

Comparison of Spinal Cord Stimulation vs. Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation vs. Association of Both in Patients with Refractory Chronic Back and/or Lower Limb Neuropathic Pain: An International, Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover Trial (BOOST-DRG Study)

While spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy to address refractory persistent spinal pain syndrome after spinal surgery (PSPS-T2), its lack of spatial selectivity and reported discomfort due to positional effects can be considered as significant limitations. As alternatives, new waveforms, such as burst stimulation and different spatial neural targets, such as dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS), have shown promising results. Comparisons between DRGS and standard SCS, or their combination, have never been studied on the same patients. “BOOST DRG” is the first prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study to compare SCS vs. DRGS vs. SCS+DRGS. Sixty-six PSPS-T2 patients will be recruited internationally in three centers. Before crossing over, patients will receive each stimulation modality for 1 month, using tonic conventional stimulation. After 3 months, stimulation will consist in switching to burst for 1 month, and patients will choose which modality/waveform they receive and will then be reassessed at 6 and 12 months. In addition to our primary outcome based on pain rating, this study is designed to assess quality of life, functional disability, psychological distress, pain surface coverage, global impression of change, medication quantification, adverse events, brain functional imaging and electroencephalography, with the objective being to provide a multidimensional insight based on composite pain assessment.

The importance of the local twitch response during needling interventions in spinal pain associated with myofascial trigger points: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To compare the clinical effects of needling interventions eliciting local twitch responses (LTRs) versus needling without eliciting LTRs when applied to muscle trigger points (TrPs) associated with spinal pain of musculoskeletal origin. Databases and data treatment: Electronic databases were searched for randomized or non-randomized clinical trials where one group received needling intervention where LTRs were elicited and was compared with another group receiving the same intervention without elicitation of LTRs in spinal pain disorders associated with TrPs. Outcomes included pain intensity, pain-related disability, and pressure pain thresholds. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or ROBINS-I tool, methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro score, and quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Results: Six trials were included. The application of a needling intervention eliciting LTRs was associated with a significant reduction in pain intensity immediately after treatment (mean difference (MD): −2.03 points, 95% confidence interval (CI): −3.77 to −0.29; standardized MD (SMD): −1.35, 95% CI: −2.32 to −0.38, p = 0.02) when compared to the same needling intervention without elicitation of LTRs. No effect at short-term follow-up (MD: −0.20 points, 95% CI: −1.46 to 1.06, p = 0.75) was observed. No significant differences based on elicitation or non-elicitation of LTRs were found in related disability (SMD: −0.05, 95% CI: −0.41 to 0.30, p = 0.77) or pressure pain thresholds (MD: 23.39 kPa, 95% CI: −13.68 to 60.47, p = 0.22). Discussion: Low-level evidence suggests an immediate effect of obtaining LTRs during needling interventions on pain intensity, with no significant effects on related disability or pressure pain sensitivity in spinal pain disorders associated with muscle TrPs. Registration number: OSF Registry— https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5ZX9N

Reducing the Weight of Spinal Pain in Children and Adolescents

Spinal pain in adults is a significant burden, from an individual and societal perspective. According to epidemiologic data, spinal pain is commonly found in children and adolescents, where evidence emerging over the past decade has demonstrated that spinal pain in adults can, in many cases, be traced back to childhood or adolescence. Nevertheless, very little focus has been on how to best manage spinal pain in younger age groups. The purpose of this article is to put the focus on spinal pain in children and adolescents and highlight how and where these problems emerge and how they are commonly dealt with. We will draw on findings from the relevant literature from adults to highlight potential common pathways that can be used in the management of spinal pain in children and adolescents. The overall focus is on how healthcare professionals can best support children and adolescents and their caregivers in making sense of spinal pain (when present) and support them in the self-management of the condition.

The importance of selecting the correct site to apply spinal manipulation when treating spinal pain: Myth or reality? A systematic review

The concept that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) outcomes are optimized when the treatment is aimed at a clinically relevant joint is commonly assumed and central to teaching and clinical use (candidate sites). This systematic review investigated whether clinical effects are superior when this is the case compared to SMT applied elsewhere (non-candidate sites). Eligible study designs were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of spinal manipulation applied to candidate versus non-candidate sites for spinal pain. We obtained data from four different databases. Risk of bias was assessed using an adjusted Cochrane risk of bias tool, adding four items for study quality. We extracted between-group differences for any reported outcome or, when not reported, calculated effect sizes from the within-group changes. We compared outcomes for SMT applied at a ‘relevant’ site to SMT applied elsewhere. We prioritized methodologically robust studies when interpreting results. Ten studies, all of acceptable quality, were included that reported 33 between-group differences—five compared treatments within the same spinal region and five at different spinal regions. None of the nine studies with low or moderate risk of bias reported statistically significant between-group differences for any outcome. The tenth study reported a small effect on pain (1.2/10, 95%CI − 1.9 to − 0.5) but had a high risk of bias. None of the nine articles of low or moderate risk of bias and acceptable quality reported that “clinically-relevant” SMT has a superior outcome on any outcome compared to “not clinically-relevant” SMT. This finding contrasts with ideas held in educational programs and clinical practice that emphasize the importance of joint-specific application of SMT.

Psychometric validation of the Polish version of the Central Sensitization Inventory in subjects with chronic spinal pain

Background Central sensitization is an amplification of neuronal signaling within the central nervous system. The Central Sensitization Inventory was introduced in 2012. A Polish version of the CSI (CSI-Pol) was developed in 2019, but it was not psychometrically validated. The aim of this study was to validate the CSI-Pol in a sample of Polish-speaking patients with chronic spinal pain and compare them with a group of healthy control subjects. Methods The CSI-Pol was administered to 151 patients with chronic spinal pain recruited from two centers. It was re-administered 7 days later. The psychometric properties were then evaluated, including test-retest reliability, construct validity, factor structure and internal consistency. We correlated the CSI-Pol with functional scales, depression and social support scales and compared CSI-Pol scores in the clinical subjects with 30 healthy control subjects recruited from medical staff and their families. Results The CSI-Pol demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α =0,933) and test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients - ICC =0.96), as well as significant positive associations with other patient-reported scales, including the Neck Disability Index (r = 0.593), Revised Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (r = 0.422), and other measures of functional and depressive states. An exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 4-factor model. CSI-Pol scores in the clinical sample (35.27 ± 17.25) were significantly higher than the control sample (23.3 ± 8.9). Conclusion The results of this study suggest that the CSI-Pol may be a useful clinical tool for assessing central sensitization related symptoms and guiding appropriate treatment in Polish-speaking patients with spinal pain.