Unraveling The Mechanisms of Manual Therapy Modeling An Approach
Unraveling The Mechanisms of Manual Therapy Modeling An Approach
Unraveling The Mechanisms of Manual Therapy Modeling An Approach
JOEL E. BIALOSKY, PT, PhD1,2 • JASON M. BENECIUK, PT, PhD1,2 • MARK D. BISHOP, PT, PhD1 • ROGELIO A. CORONADO, PT, PhD3
CHARLES W. PENZA, DC, PhD1 • COREY B. SIMON, PT, PhD4,5 • STEVEN Z. GEORGE, PT, PhD5
M
anual therapy (MT) interventions are a preferred treatment these 2 prerequisites are met, patients can
for both health care professionals from a variety of be matched to an appropriate treatment,
disciplines14,36,77,82 and patients with musculoskeletal pain allowing for the targeted application
of a specific intervention of known
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at on March 18, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
conflicting research support.60 Such to treating individuals presenting however, the current understanding of
findings are not dissimilar to those for with musculoskeletal pain conditions these mechanisms is lacking, requiring
other interventions for pain and are represent a rational targeted approach additional and more optimally designed
attributed to substantial individual for personalizing treatment.26,32,45 studies to answer this important question.
variability in treatment response. 32 There are 2 prerequisites needed to
Subsequently, the clinical decision- properly implement this approach: The Need for a Model
making process that guides the use first, a mechanism contributing to a of the Mechanisms of MT
of MT may be best directed at the clinical population or subpopulation The mechanistic approach to MT is
individual patient on the provider level, (ie, a homogeneous subgroup) must be complicated by the complex nature of
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®
rather than using a “one-size-fits-all” identified; second, the biological effects of MT interventions. While drug effects are
approach.32 a treatment should be established. When often attributed to a specific and well-
defined active ingredient, the mechanisms
UUSYNOPSIS: Manual therapy interventions are the patient, the provider, and the environment in underlying complex interventions, such as
popular among individual health care providers which the intervention occurs. Therefore, a model those used for MT, are multifaceted and
and their patients; however, systematic reviews to guide both study design and the interpreta- comprise specific and nonspecific factors
do not strongly support their effectiveness. tion of findings is necessary. We have previously related to the intervention, the patient, the
Small treatment effect sizes of manual therapy
proposed a model suggesting that the mechanical provider, and the environment in which
interventions may result from a “one-size-fits-
all” approach to treatment. Mechanistic-based
force from a manual therapy intervention results the intervention is provided. Subsequently,
treatment approaches to manual therapy offer in systemic neurophysiological responses leading a single, well-defined mechanism of an
an intriguing alternative for identifying patients to pain inhibition. In this clinical commentary, we MT intervention is unlikely, and resulting
likely to respond to manual therapy. However, the provide a narrative appraisal of the model and outcomes are probably related to varying
current lack of knowledge of the mechanisms recommendations to advance the study of manual inherent elements and contextual
through which manual therapy interventions therapy mechanisms. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther factors.13,25,74 We believe that research
inhibit pain limits such an approach. The nature of 2018;48(1):8-18. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7476 focusing on individual mechanisms
manual therapy interventions further confounds
such an approach, as the related mechanisms are UUKEY WORDS: manipulation, mobilization, in isolation will always fall short of
likely a complex interaction of factors related to neurophysiology, pain, theory providing meaningful insight, because
MT is a complex intervention involving
1
Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 2Brooks-PHHP Research Collaboration, Jacksonville, FL. 3Department of Physical Therapy and Department of
Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 4Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Duke University, Durham, NC. 5Duke Clinical Research
Institute and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC. Drs Bialosky and Bishop were supported by National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health
grant R01 AT006334 from the National Institutes of Health. The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial
interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the article. Address correspondence to Dr Joel E. Bialosky, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Box 100154,
University of Florida Health Science Center, Gainesville, FL 32610-0154. E-mail: [email protected] t Copyright ©2018 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®
8 | january 2018 | volume 48 | number 1 | journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy
multiple interactions of complementary and not intended to emphasize any tic literature within the context of our
mechanisms. As with other complex single or specific approach. The model model, as well as highlight key areas for
interventions, MT providers and was designed to comprehensively account advancing this area of research. For the
researchers benefit from a theoretical for the interacting mechanisms behind a model to continue to be relevant, specific
model to both guide the design and assist complex MT intervention. Importantly, issues related to its future application
in interpreting the results of mechanistic the model allows researchers (1) to are considered. Importantly, this com-
studies. consider and account for competing mentary is not intended to be a system-
We published a model to begin to mechanisms when designing studies (ie, atic review or complete appraisal of the
account for the multiple pain inhibitory mechanisms related to biomechanical original model. Rather, the commentary
mechanisms of MT.6 The model postulates effects, peripherally mediated effects, highlights areas that we believe are im-
that the mechanical stimulus from an MT spinal cord–mediated effects, and portant considerations for progressing
intervention results in neurophysiological supraspinally mediated effects), and clinical and research perspectives.
responses within the peripheral and (2) to acknowledge the potential for
central nervous systems responsible for alternative plausible explanations to their Advancing the Understanding Through
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at on March 18, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
pain inhibition (FIGURE 1). Importantly, findings should the study not account for Appropriate Study Design
the model is applicable to different competing mechanisms. Mechanistic studies of MT are often per-
MT approaches (ie, joint mobilization, This clinical commentary will address formed in humans, which, unlike animal
massage, neurodynamic interventions) the current state of the MT mechanis- models, prohibit direct observation of the
Copyright © 2018 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®. All rights reserved.
Imaging
Nonspecific responses
• Placebo/expectation
• Psychological measures
Pain modulatory - Fear
circuitry - Catastrophizing
Pain Pain-related • ACC - Kinesiophobia
brain circuitry • Amygdala
• PAG
Endocrine response
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®
• RVM
Rating
• B-endorphins
• Opioid response
Imaging
Autonomic response
• Skin temperature
• Skin conduction
• Cortisol levels
• Heart rate
Mechanical stimulus
Imaging
FIGURE 1. Comprehensive model of the mechanisms of manual therapy. The model suggests that a transient, mechanical stimulus to the tissue produces a chain of
neurophysiological effects. Solid arrows denote a direct mediating effect. Broken arrows denote an associative relationship, which may include an association between
a construct and its measure. Bold boxes indicate the measurement of a construct. Abbreviations: ACC, anterior cingulate cortex; PAG, periaqueductal gray; RVM, rostral
ventromedial medulla. Reprinted from Bialosky et al,6 with permission from Elsevier. ©2009 Elsevier.
journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy | volume 48 | number 1 | january 2018 | 9
[ clinical commentary ]
nervous system. Our model based the as- temporal precedence with an outcome. since the model was originally published,
sessment of nervous system responses to For example, spinal stiffness and lumbar and, in fact, more recent studies continue
MT in humans on associated responses multifidus recruitment were assessed at to refute a specific biomechanical mech-
serving as behavioral correlates (ie, proxy baseline and immediately following a anism. The clinical examination process
measures) of underlying mechanisms. spinal manipulative therapy intervention for determining biomechanical dysfunc-
For example, changes in skin blood flow over 2 sessions, and then a week follow- tion continues to be unreliable,97 relates
represent an indirect correlate of the ing the second session, in participants poorly to clinical outcomes,85 and dem-
sympathetic nervous system responses with low back pain.38 Improvements in onstrates a poor association with reli-
to MT,104 while changes in the flexor the Oswestry Disability Index were me- able and accurate mechanical measures61
withdrawal reflex may represent a spinal diated by improved lumbar multifidus as well as with magnetic resonance
cord–mediated response to MT.24 Nu- recruitment and decreases in stiffness.38 imaging.63
merous studies have provided evidence of Moderators are variables measured prior Specific to clinical outcomes, signifi-
immediate neurophysiological responses to treatment that interact with a specific cant within-group improvements are ob-
following MT; however, while serving intervention and influence an outcome of served in response to MT interventions;
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at on March 18, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
as proof-of-concept work for more com- interest often identified in a randomized however, between-group differences are
plex designs, single pre/post randomized clinical trial.62,76 For example, secondary not observed, confirming similar re-
controlled trials are not designed to de- analysis of the UK BEAM trial found sponses to techniques of varying mechan-
termine the individual or combined in- that, although several baseline factors ical parameters.19,55,100 Furthermore, the
fluential factors of clinical improvement. predicted overall outcome, none were clinical outcomes of MT interventions,
Copyright © 2018 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®. All rights reserved.
Future studies must establish a link be- predictive of response to a specific treat- whether based on clinical presentation
tween these associated responses and ment (ie, spinal manipulation, exercise, or random allocation, are similar.31,59 Col-
clinical symptoms, as well as establish or spinal manipulation followed by exer- lectively, this body of literature continues
covariance of improvements between as- cise), with only trends identified for the to support our initial assertion against an
sociated responses and clinical outcomes. role of positive treatment expectations isolated and specific mechanical mecha-
Evaluating these multifactorial relation- for those receiving combined treatment.93 nism accounting for clinical outcomes in
ships requires complex study designs Identifying treatment-effect moderators response to complex MT interventions.6
that are not always feasible to conduct in provides information to establish “for Despite this evidence to the contrary,
clinical settings. Cook18 has highlighted whom and under what conditions” treat- the clinical approach to MT based on a
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®
the limitations of reliance on immediate ment is effective.76 theorized specific biomechanical mecha-
assessment of either mechanistic or clini- nism persists.1,29,30,42,95 We believe that
cal outcomes, including similar findings Advancing the Understanding this perpetuation of dated modes of ac-
in response to numerous interventions of the Mechanical Force tion for MT is both unsubstantiated and
and the failure to relate these to long- Clinical use of MT is traditionally driven counterproductive.
term clinical outcomes. One strategy to by the assumption of a peripherally act-
address these concerns and to advance ing, mechanical mechanism,10,33,52 for ex- Advancing the Understanding
this line of research in future studies is to ample, the application of a specific MT of MT-Related Pain Inhibition
attempt to distinguish these immediate technique applied to a perceived dys- Our model was designed to account
associated responses as treatment me- functional vertebral segment identified for the mechanism of MT on pain
diators and moderators. Mediators are through passive movement assessment inhibition.6 Psychophysical testing,
variables measured during the course or imaging. Our model acknowledges a such as the application of standardized
of treatment to evaluate for change and mechanical force as an inherent element noxious thermal or mechanical forces,
subsequent impact on outcome.62,76 Me- of any MT intervention and directs stud- allows for the study of mechanisms
diators have been described as process ies to account for mechanical force as a related to changes in pain processing.
variables that implicate possible mecha- potential contributing mechanism. Based Systematic reviews support a transient
nisms by which an intervention may be on the literature at the time, the model pain inhibitory effect of MT21,40,69 on
effective, especially when these variables theorized that clinical outcomes were re- psychophysical measures, occurring
represent a plausible construct that the lated to corresponding neurophysiologi- both locally and remotely. Higher pain
treatment is intended to modify. Potential cal responses and occurred independent sensitivity, as determined by a lower pain
mediators of change establish how or why of the specific mechanical parameters of threshold at the site of injury or pain, may
treatment effects occur and should be the force. Little has changed to support a reflect local sensitization in the peripheral
identified a priori and measured before, mechanism related to the specific biome- (reduced receptor threshold) or central
during, and after treatment to establish chanical parameters of the interventions nervous system (specific somatosensory
10 | january 2018 | volume 48 | number 1 | journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy
regions), while higher pain sensitivity at shown that temporal summation of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimu-
sites distant from the site of injury may heat pain is reduced immediately after lation has incorporated paradigms that
reflect more general sensitization of the the application of spinal manipulative determine differential pain-relieving
central nervous system. Changes in pain therapy, and that these reductions effects on movement-evoked pain.83,94
sensitivity are observed in response to are greater than those following Movement-evoked pain lessens following
MT both at the site of application and exercise or carefully constructed sham an MT intervention,4,56,57 which suggests
at distal sites, indicating the presence interventions. 7-9,11 Improved pain that future investigation should differ-
of a central mediating effect.22,64,81 The modulatory capacity, as observed through entiate these findings from spontaneous
approach of such studies is often limited changes in conditioned pain modulation, pain, in terms of the magnitude of re-
to assessment of static measures of has been found to correspond to sponse as well as the relationship to clini-
mechanical and thermal pain thresholds, joint mobilization to the knee in cal outcomes of importance to patients.
providing little insight into individual participants with knee osteoarthritis.23
pain modulation capacity. Subsequently, favorable changes in Advancing the Understanding of
Psychophysical testing protocols pain modulatory capacity represent a Supraspinally Mediated Mechanisms
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at on March 18, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
allow for the assessment of in vivo pain potential biological effect of MT, possibly Previous mechanistic models of MT
modulatory capacities and profiling informing mechanistic-based treatment incorporating nervous system responses
of individuals based on response approaches. Such approaches have been took a “reflexive” route, meaning that
to nociceptive input. For example, undertaken in drug trials. For example, neurological responses to MT were
conditioned pain modulation is duloxetine, a drug that enhances limited to physiologic or autonomic
Copyright © 2018 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®. All rights reserved.
characterized by a reduction of pain descending inhibition of pain, is more outputs.75 Our model acknowledged
sensitivity at one site in response effective in individuals who demonstrate such processes but advanced the pathway
to nociceptive input at another site diminished conditioned pain into regions of the nervous system not
and reflects descending inhibition of modulation.103 Furthermore, ketamine, typically considered as having a “direct”
pain through the spino-bulbar-spinal which inhibits temporal summation, is response to MT. The timing of this focus
loop, representing a pain inhibitory more effective for individuals presenting was vital, because when the model was
process. 78,101 Temporal summation, with heightened temporal summation.46 first proposed, limited evidence from
characterized by an increase in pain A similar approach has not been human and animal research supported
sensitivity in response to repeated adequately considered in the field of MT, the assumption of MT altering sensory
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®
noxious stimulation, represents increased necessitating further study and a future processing in supraspinal structures.48,65,84
dorsal horn excitability27,47 and reflects a direction of studies of pain inhibition in The understanding of supraspinally
pain facilitatory process.45,102 Dynamic response to MT. mediated mechanisms of MT has pro-
psychophysical testing allows for profiling Movement-evoked pain offers an gressed greatly since the model was
of individuals. For example, those with alternative pain modulatory measure originally published, including studies
augmented temporal summation or that should be considered in future of MT-associated measures of cortical
inefficient conditioned pain modulation mechanistic-focused MT studies. Move- function through somatosensory-evoked
are considered at risk for developing ment-evoked pain often has a greater as- potentials,48,49 as well as neuroimaging
a pain condition, experiencing greater sociation with physical function decline advances through positron emission
pain severity when a pain condition and decreased quality of life than does tomography72 and functional magnetic
develops, and progressing from acute resting/spontaneous pain.87,89 For exam- resonance imaging (fMRI). Findings
pain to chronic pain.102 Conversely, those ple, pain in response to a repeated lifting from these approaches have significantly
with blunted temporal summation or task accounted for significant and unique advanced the understanding of MT-
augmented conditioned pain modulation variance in disability beyond a measure related changes in cortical function. For
may be less likely to develop a pain of spontaneous pain in participants with example, fMRI has been used to study the
condition, experience less pain severity whiplash-associated disorder.66 Differ- effects of MT in several complementary
when a pain condition develops, and ences in magnitude and influence of pain ways. First, fMRI has been used to inves-
be less likely to progress from acute types suggest that different mechanisms tigate cortical responses during MT. For
to chronic pain.102 Subsequently, pain and MT effects may also differ between example, during the posterior-to-anterior
modulatory profiles may be useful in spontaneous and movement-evoked mechanical force produced by MT, acti-
identifying more homogeneous groups pain. Considering movement-evoked vation is observed in medial parts of the
of patients. pain may better characterize the pain- postcentral gyrus (S1) bilaterally, the sec-
Pain modulatory capacities are relieving properties of interventions pro- ondary somatosensory cortex (S2), poste-
responsive to MT. For example, we have viding episodic relief. The literature on rior parts of the insular cortex, different
journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy | volume 48 | number 1 | january 2018 | 11
[ clinical commentary ]
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Provider
Mechanical
stimulus
Context
Copyright © 2018 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®. All rights reserved.
Patient
FIGURE 2. Updated comprehensive model of the mechanisms of manual therapy. The model suggests that a transient, mechanical stimulus to the tissue produces a chain
of neurophysiological effects. Zone 1 represents the mechanical stimulus from the provider to the tissue, as well as the interaction between the patient and provider. Zone 2
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®
represents potential nervous system responses to the mechanical stimulus, as well as the patient-provider interaction. Zone 3 represents the potential outcomes.
parts of the cingulate cortex, and the cer- ing of nociception before and after MT. results of this study suggest that MT al-
ebellum.67 Second, fMRI has been used to Healthy volunteers, who completed an ters cortical interactions within nocicep-
assess how MT alters the central nervous exercise-injury protocol to induce low tive processing networks at rest, such that
system responses to a noxious stimulus. back pain, underwent resting-state fMRI. subsequent stimuli are received within
For example, healthy volunteers under- They were then randomized into 1 of 3 the cortex in an altered state. Future
went fMRI scanning while receiving nox- MT interventions: spinal thrust manipu- studies should attempt to further clarify
ious stimuli applied to the cuticle of the lation, spinal nonthrust mobilization, or how MT disrupts maladaptive cortical
index finger. Participants then received therapeutic touch, and then underwent patterns and functional connectivity as-
a supine thrust manipulation directed a second resting-state fMRI. Following sociated with chronic pain.
to the mid thoracic spine and were im- MT, there was a reduction in experimen-
mediately returned to the scanner for re- tally induced low back pain, with no dif- Limitations
imaging with a second delivery of noxious ferences observed between types of MT. Methodological approaches to
stimuli. The thrust joint manipulation Common to all MT interventions, the measurement are one of the primary
was associated with hypoalgesia, as well coupling of cortical activity decreased be- limitations to the study of MT
as a significant reduction in activity in the tween sensory discriminant and affective mechanisms, as many techniques
sensory-motor cortices S1, S2, anterior regions (primary somatosensory cortex described in the model to evaluate
cingulate cortex, cerebellum, and insular and posterior insular cortex), while in- nervous system processing are not
cortices, with reduction of cortical activ- creases were observed between affective direct or are isolated measures of
ity correlated to decreased pain percep- regions (posterior cingulate and anterior nervous system activity. The model is
tion.86 Third, resting-state fMRI assessed insular cortices) and affective and de- based on associated neurophysiological
the coupling of cortical activity between scending pain modulatory regions (insu- responses and not direct observation of
brain regions involved in the process- lar cortex and periaqueductal gray).41 The nervous system activity. Subsequently,
12 | january 2018 | volume 48 | number 1 | journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy
have been associated with clinical out-
• Equipoise comes. For example, a study comparing
• Expectation Provider the use of spinal thrust manipulation to
• Pain beliefs
• Clinical experience nonthrust mobilization for participants
Mechanical stimulus with low back pain observed no group-
• Soft tissue biased dependent differences in pain, disability,
• Nerve biased
total visits, days in care, or rate of recov-
• Joint biased
ery; however, a significant association was
observed between the treating therapist’s
lack of equipoise (ie, preference for thrust
versus nonthrust mobilization) and sub-
Context sequent outcomes.19 Moreover, provider
expectations can also influence patient
outcomes. For example, baseline physician
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at on March 18, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy | volume 48 | number 1 | january 2018 | 13
[ clinical commentary ]
domains that are valued from a patient
• Somatosensory-evoked • Somatosensory-evoked perspective.
potentials potentials
• Imaging • Imaging
– Positron emission – Positron emission CONCLUSION
tomography tomography
T
– Functional magnetic – Functional magnetic he implementation of effective
resonance imaging resonance imaging
• Conditioned pain MT depends on many factors, in-
modulation cluding a thorough understanding
of the underlying multifactorial mecha-
nisms through which these interventions
exert their effectiveness. Determin-
ing the mechanisms of MT would both
Pain modulatory Pain-related strengthen the best available research
circuitry and enhance clinical practice through
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at on March 18, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
brain circuitry
a personalized treatment approach,
perhaps resulting in better agreement
between clinical judgment, patient pref-
• Autonomic response erences, and the available literature. Clin-
– Skin temperature
ical prediction rules are one approach to
Copyright © 2018 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®. All rights reserved.
– Skin conduction
– Cortisol levels stratification initially embraced by MT
– Heart rate providers and researchers. Many clini-
Peripheral nervous system Spinal cord • Neuromuscular cal prediction rules purported to identify
responses
– Motoneuron pool key signs and symptoms suggestive of pa-
– Afferent discharge tients with musculoskeletal pain who are
– Muscle activity likely to benefit from MT.3,16,28,34,37,54,71,79,96
• Temporal summation Despite the initial enthusiasm, the meth-
• Cytokines odology of these approaches has been
• Neuropeptides
questioned and cautious interpretation
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®
14 | january 2018 | volume 48 | number 1 | journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy
MT. Recent work suggests limitations to comprehensive model. Man Ther. 2009;14:531- a general cervical range of motion exercise:
the original model that can be improved 538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2008.09.001 multi-center randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther.
by the inclusion of provider factors, the 7. B
ialosky JE, Bishop MD, Price DD, Robinson ME, 2010;90:1239-1250. https://doi.org/10.2522/
Vincent KR, George SZ. A randomized sham- ptj.20100123
inclusion of movement-evoked pain, and
controlled trial of a neurodynamic technique 18. Cook C. Immediate effects from manual therapy:
linking findings to a broader spectrum in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. J much ado about nothing? J Man Manip Ther.
of pain-related outcome domains. Mov- Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39:709-723. 2011;19:3-4. https://doi.org/10.1179/10669811
ing forward, we believe that the tradi- https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2009.3117 0X12804993427009
8. B
ialosky JE, Bishop MD, Robinson ME, 19. Cook C, Learman K, Showalter C, Kabbaz V,
tional emphasis on solely biomechanical
Zeppieri G, Jr., George SZ. Spinal manipulative O’Halloran B. Early use of thrust manipulation
mechanisms of MT is misguided in focus therapy has an immediate effect on thermal versus non-thrust manipulation: a randomized
and limited in scope. Subsequent efforts pain sensitivity in people with low back pain: clinical trial. Man Ther. 2013;18:191-198. https://
should focus on a broader understanding a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.08.005
2009;89:1292-1303. https://doi.org/10.2522/ 20. Cook C, Sheets C. Clinical equipoise and per-
of how MT alters processing of nocicep-
ptj.20090058 sonal equipoise: two necessary ingredients for
tion to impact the entire pain experience. 9. B
ialosky JE, George SZ, Horn ME, Price DD, reducing bias in manual therapy trials. J Man
Specifically, greater consideration of pain
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at on March 18, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy | volume 48 | number 1 | january 2018 | 15
[ clinical commentary ]
Danneels L, Cagnie B. Articular dysfunction Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD001929. Clinical prediction rules in the physiotherapy
patterns in patients with mechanical neck https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001929. management of low back pain: a systematic
pain: a clinical algorithm to guide specific pub3 review. Man Ther. 2012;17:9-21. https://doi.
mobilization and manipulation techniques. Man 40. G
ay CW, Alappattu MJ, Coronado RA, Horn ME, org/10.1016/j.math.2011.05.001
Ther. 2014;19:2-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Bishop MD. Effect of a single session of muscle- 52. Henderson CN. The basis for spinal
math.2013.09.007 biased therapy on pain sensitivity: a systematic manipulation: chiropractic perspective of
30. Dewitte V, Cagnie B, Barbe T, Beernaert A, review and meta-analysis of randomized indications and theory. J Electromyogr Kinesiol.
Vanthillo B, Danneels L. Articular dysfunction controlled trials. J Pain Res. 2013;6:7-22. https:// 2012;22:632-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
patterns in patients with mechanical low back doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S37272 jelekin.2012.03.008
pain: a clinical algorithm to guide specific 41. G
ay CW, Robinson ME, George SZ, Perlstein WM, 53. Hurwitz EL. Epidemiology: spinal manipulation
mobilization and manipulation techniques. Bishop MD. Immediate changes after manual utilization. J Electromyogr Kinesiol.
Man Ther. 2015;20:499-502. https://doi. therapy in resting-state functional connectivity 2012;22:648-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1016/j.math.2014.11.006 as measured by functional magnetic resonance jelekin.2012.01.006
31. Donaldson M, Petersen S, Cook C, Learman K. A imaging in participants with induced low back 54. Iverson CA, Sutlive TG, Crowell MS, et al.
prescriptively selected nonthrust manipulation pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014;37:614- Lumbopelvic manipulation for the treatment
versus a therapist-selected nonthrust 627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2014.09.001 of patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome:
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at on March 18, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
2016;157:1851-1871. https://doi.org/10.1097/j. high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation for patients with chronic neck pain. Man Ther.
pain.0000000000000602 for low back pain: a systematic review. J 2014;19:215-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
33. Evans DW, Breen AC. A biomechanical model Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012;22:670-691. https:// math.2013.12.002
for mechanically efficient cavitation production doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.03.006 56. Kanlayanaphotporn R, Chiradejnant A,
during spinal manipulation: prethrust position 44. G
racely RH, Dubner R, Deeter WR, Wolskee Vachalathiti R. Immediate effects of the central
and the neutral zone. J Manipulative Physiol PJ. Clinicians’ expectations influence placebo posteroanterior mobilization technique on pain
Ther. 2006;29:72-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. analgesia [letter]. Lancet. 1985;325:43. https:// and range of motion in patients with mechanical
jmpt.2005.11.011 doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(85)90984-5 neck pain. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32:622-628.
34. Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Cleland JA, 45. G
ranovsky Y, Yarnitsky D. Personalized pain https://doi.org/10.3109/09638280903204716
Cuadrado ML, Pareja JA. Predictor variables for medicine: the clinical value of psychophysical 57. Kanlayanaphotporn R, Chiradejnant A,
identifying patients with chronic tension-type assessment of pain modulation profile. Rambam Vachalathiti R. The immediate effects of
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®
headache who are likely to achieve short-term Maimonides Med J. 2013;4:e0024. https://doi. mobilization technique on pain and range of
success with muscle trigger point therapy. org/10.5041/RMMJ.10131 motion in patients presenting with unilateral
Cephalalgia. 2008;28:264-275. https://doi. 46. G
raven-Nielsen T, Kendall SA, Henriksson KG, neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. Arch
org/10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01530.x et al. Ketamine reduces muscle pain, temporal Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:187-192. https://doi.
35. Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Cleland JA, Salom- summation, and referred pain in fibromyalgia org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.07.017
Moreno J, et al. Prediction of outcome in women patients. Pain. 2000;85:483-491. https://doi. 58. Kapoor S, Shaw WS, Pransky G, Patterson
with carpal tunnel syndrome who receive manual org/10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00308-5 W. Initial patient and clinician expectations
physical therapy interventions: a validation study. 47. G
uan Y, Borzan J, Meyer RA, Raja SN. Windup in of return to work after acute onset of work-
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016;46:443-451. dorsal horn neurons is modulated by endogenous related low back pain. J Occup Environ Med.
https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2016.6348 spinal μ-opioid mechanisms. J Neurosci. 2006;48:1173-1180. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.
36. Ferrari R, Russell AS. Survey of general 2006;26:4298-4307. https://doi.org/10.1523/ jom.0000243401.22301.5e
practitioner, family physician, and chiropractor’s JNEUROSCI.0960-06.2006 59. Kent P, Marks D, Pearson W, Keating J. Does
beliefs regarding the management of acute 48. H
aavik-Taylor H, Murphy B. Cervical spine clinician treatment choice improve the outcomes
whiplash patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). manipulation alters sensorimotor integration: of manual therapy for nonspecific low back pain?
2004;29:2173-2177. a somatosensory evoked potential study. Clin A metaanalysis. J Manipulative Physiol Ther.
37. Flynn T, Fritz J, Whitman J, et al. A clinical Neurophysiol. 2007;118:391-402. https://doi. 2005;28:312-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
prediction rule for classifying patients with org/10.1016/j.clinph.2006.09.014 jmpt.2005.04.009
low back pain who demonstrate short-term 49. H
aavik Taylor H, Murphy B. The effects of spinal 60. Koes BW, van Tulder M, Lin CW, Macedo LG,
improvement with spinal manipulation. Spine manipulation on central integration of dual McAuley J, Maher C. An updated overview of
(Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:2835-2843. somatosensory input observed after motor clinical guidelines for the management of non-
38. Fritz JM, Koppenhaver SL, Kawchuk GN, training: a crossover study. J Manipulative specific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine
Teyhen DS, Hebert JJ, Childs JD. Preliminary Physiol Ther. 2010;33:261-272. https://doi. J. 2010;19:2075-2094. https://doi.org/10.1007/
investigation of the mechanisms underlying org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.03.004 s00586-010-1502-y
the effects of manipulation: exploration of a 50. H
ancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, Herbert 61. Koppenhaver SL, Hebert JJ, Kawchuk GN, et al.
multivariate model including spinal stiffness, RD, McAuley JH. Independent evaluation of a Criterion validity of manual assessment of spinal
multifidus recruitment, and clinical findings. clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulative stiffness. Man Ther. 2014;19:589-594. https://doi.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:1772-1781. https:// therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine org/10.1016/j.math.2014.06.001
doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318216337d J. 2008;17:936-943. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 62. Kraemer HC. Messages for clinicians:
39. Furlan AD, Giraldo M, Baskwill A, Irvin E, s00586-008-0679-9 moderators and mediators of treatment outcome
Imamura M. Massage for low-back pain. 51. H
askins R, Rivett DA, Osmotherly PG. in randomized clinical trials. Am J Psychiatry.
16 | january 2018 | volume 48 | number 1 | journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy
2016;173:672-679. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi. 2017;317:1451-1460. https://doi.org/10.1001/ decision-making. J Electromyogr Kinesiol.
ajp.2016.15101333 jama.2017.3086 2012;22:708-723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
63. Landel R, Kulig K, Fredericson M, Li B, Powers 74. P
aterson C, Dieppe P. Characteristic and jelekin.2012.04.015
CM. Intertester reliability and validity of motion incidental (placebo) effects in complex 86. Sparks C, Cleland JA, Elliott JM, Zagardo M,
assessments during lumbar spine accessory interventions such as acupuncture. BMJ. Liu WC. Using functional magnetic resonance
motion testing. Phys Ther. 2008;88:43-49. 2005;330:1202-1205. https://doi.org/10.1136/ imaging to determine if cerebral hemodynamic
https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20060179 bmj.330.7501.1202 responses to pain change following thoracic
64. Lascurain-Aguirrebeña I, Newham D, Critchley 75. P
ickar JG. Neurophysiological effects of spinal spine thrust manipulation in healthy individuals.
DJ. Mechanism of action of spinal mobilizations: manipulation. Spine J. 2002;2:357-371. https:// J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43:340-348.
a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). doi.org/10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00400-X https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2013.4631
2016;41:159-172. https://doi.org/10.1097/ 76. P
incus T, Miles C, Froud R, Underwood M, Carnes 87. Srikandarajah S, Gilron I. Systematic review of
BRS.0000000000001151 D, Taylor SJ. Methodological criteria for the movement-evoked pain versus pain at rest in
65. Malisza KL, Gregorash L, Turner A, et al. assessment of moderators in systematic reviews postsurgical clinical trials and meta-analyses: a
Functional MRI involving painful stimulation of randomised controlled trials: a consensus fundamental distinction requiring standardized
of the ankle and the effect of physiotherapy study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:14. measurement. Pain. 2011;152:1734-1739. https://
joint mobilization. Magn Reson Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-14 doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2011.02.008
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at on March 18, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
jpain.2014.06.010 noxious inhibitory control (DNIC)-like effect Balluz L. Health-related quality of life, health risk
67. Meier ML, Hotz-Boendermaker S, Boendermaker in humans. Pain. 2009;144:16-19. https://doi. behaviors, and disability among adults with pain-
B, Luechinger R, Humphreys BK. Neural org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.02.015 related activity difficulty. Am J Public Health.
responses of posterior to anterior movement 79. P
uentedura EJ, Cleland JA, Landers MR, 2005;95:2042-2048. https://doi.org/10.2105/
on lumbar vertebrae: a functional magnetic Mintken PE, Louw A, Fernández-de-las-Peñas AJPH.2005.066225
resonance imaging study. J Manipulative Physiol C. Development of a clinical prediction rule to 90. Sullivan MD, Ballantyne JC. Must we reduce
Ther. 2014;37:32-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit pain intensity to treat chronic pain? Pain.
jmpt.2013.09.004 from thrust joint manipulation to the cervical 2016;157:65-69. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.
68. Menke JM. Do manual therapies help low spine. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42:577- pain.0000000000000336
back pain? A comparative effectiveness 592. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2012.4243 91. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, et al. Core
meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 80. R
obinson ME, Staud R, Price DD. Pain outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials:
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®
2014;39:E463-E472. https://doi.org/10.1097/ measurement and brain activity: will IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2003;106:337-
BRS.0000000000000230 neuroimages replace pain ratings? J Pain. 345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2003.08.001
69. Millan M, Leboeuf-Yde C, Budgell B, Amorim 2013;14:323-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 92. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Revicki D, et al. Identifying
MA. The effect of spinal manipulative jpain.2012.05.007 important outcome domains for chronic pain
therapy on experimentally induced pain: 81. S
chmid A, Brunner F, Wright A, Bachmann LM. clinical trials: an IMMPACT survey of people
a systematic literature review. Chiropr Paradigm shift in manual therapy? Evidence with pain. Pain. 2008;137:276-285. https://doi.
Man Therap. 2012;20:26. https://doi. for a central nervous system component in the org/10.1016/j.pain.2007.09.002
org/10.1186/2045-709X-20-26 response to passive cervical joint mobilisation. 93. Underwood MR, Morton V, Farrin A, UK BEAM
70. Murthy V, Sibbritt D, Broom A, et al. Back pain Man Ther. 2008;13:387-396. https://doi. Trial Team. Do baseline characteristics predict
sufferers’ attitudes toward consultations with org/10.1016/j.math.2007.12.007 response to treatment for low back pain?
CAM practitioners and self- prescribed CAM 82. S
herman KJ, Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, et al. The Secondary analysis of the UK BEAM dataset
products: a study of a nationally representative diagnosis and treatment of chronic back pain [ISRCTN32683578]. Rheumatology (Oxford).
sample of 1310 Australian women aged 60-65 by acupuncturists, chiropractors, and massage 2007;46:1297-1302. https://doi.org/10.1093/
years. Complement Ther Med. 2015;23:782-788. therapists. Clin J Pain. 2006;22:227-234. https:// rheumatology/kem113
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2015.09.003 doi.org/10.1097/01.ajp.0000169668.62900.ca 94. Vance CG, Rakel BA, Blodgett NP, et al. Effects
71. Nee RJ, Vicenzino B, Jull GA, Cleland JA, 83. S
imon CB, Riley JL, 3rd, Fillingim RB, Bishop of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
Coppieters MW. Baseline characteristics of MD, George SZ. Age group comparisons of TENS on pain, pain sensitivity, and function in people
patients with nerve-related neck and arm pain response among individuals with chronic axial with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled
predict the likely response to neural tissue low back pain. J Pain. 2015;16:1268-1279. https:// trial. Phys Ther. 2012;92:898-910. https://doi.
management. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2015.08.009 org/10.2522/ptj.20110183
2013;43:379-391. https://doi.org/10.2519/ 84. S
kyba DA, Radhakrishnan R, Rohlwing JJ, 95. van Trijffel E, Plochg T, van Hartingsveld F, Lucas
jospt.2013.4490 Wright A, Sluka KA. Joint manipulation reduces C, Oostendorp RA. The role and position of pas-
72. Ogura T, Tashiro M, Masud M, et al. Cerebral hyperalgesia by activation of monoamine sive intervertebral motion assessment within
metabolic changes in men after chiropractic receptors but not opioid or GABA receptors in clinical reasoning and decision-making in manu-
spinal manipulation for neck pain. Altern Ther the spinal cord. Pain. 2003;106:159-168. https:// al physical therapy: a qualitative interview study.
Health Med. 2011;17:12-17. doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00320-8 J Man Manip Ther. 2010;18:111-118. https://doi.or
73. Paige NM, Miake-Lye IM, Booth MS, et al. 85. S
nodgrass SJ, Haskins R, Rivett DA. A structured g/10.1179/106698110X12640740712815
Association of spinal manipulative therapy with review of spinal stiffness as a kinesiological 96. Vicenzino B, Smith D, Cleland J, Bisset L.
clinical benefit and harm for acute low back pain: outcome of manipulation: its measurement and Development of a clinical prediction rule to
systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. utility in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment identify initial responders to mobilisation
journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy | volume 48 | number 1 | january 2018 | 17
[ clinical commentary ]
with movement and exercise for lateral org/10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00152.x modulation predicts duloxetine efficacy in
epicondylalgia. Man Ther. 2009;14:550-554. 100. X ia T, Long CR, Gudavalli MR, et al. Similar painful diabetic neuropathy. Pain. 2012;153:1193-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2008.08.004 effects of thrust and nonthrust spinal 1198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.02.021
97. Walker BF, Koppenhaver SL, Stomski NJ, Hebert manipulation found in adults with subacute 104. Zegarra-Parodi R, Park PY, Heath DM, Makin IR,
JJ. Interrater reliability of motion palpation in and chronic low back pain: a controlled trial Degenhardt BF, Roustit M. Assessment of skin
the thoracic spine. Evid Based Complement with adaptive allocation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). blood flow following spinal manual therapy: a
Alternat Med. 2015;2015:815407. https://doi. 2016;41:E702-E709. https://doi.org/10.1097/ systematic review. Man Ther. 2015;20:228-249.
org/10.1155/2015/815407 BRS.0000000000001373 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2014.08.011
98. Williams NH, Hendry M, Lewis R, Russell I, 101. Y arnitsky D. Conditioned pain modulation (the 105. Zeppieri G, Jr., Lentz TA, Atchison JW, et al.
Westmoreland A, Wilkinson C. Psychological diffuse noxious inhibitory control-like effect): its Preliminary results of patient-defined success
response in spinal manipulation (PRISM): a relevance for acute and chronic pain states. Curr criteria for individuals with musculoskeletal pain
systematic review of psychological outcomes in Opin Anaesthesiol. 2010;23:611-615. https://doi. in outpatient physical therapy settings. Arch
randomised controlled trials. Complement Ther org/10.1097/ACO.0b013e32833c348b Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:434-440. https://doi.
Med. 2007;15:271-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 102. Y arnitsky D, Granot M, Granovsky Y. Pain org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.10.007
ctim.2007.01.008 modulation profile and pain therapy: between
99. Witt CM, Martins F, Willich SN, Schützler L. pro- and antinociception. Pain. 2014;155:663-
@ MORE INFORMATION
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at on March 18, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
18 | january 2018 | volume 48 | number 1 | journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy