• Sasha L Aspinall, Angela Jacques, Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde, Sarah J Etherington, and Bruce F Walker.
• College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. Electronic address: sasha.aspinall@murdoch.edu.au.
• Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019 Oct 1; 43: 18-25.

BackgroundChanges in quantitative sensory tests have been observed after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), particularly in pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and temporal summation (TS). However, a recent systematic review comparing SMT to sham found no significant difference in PPT in patients with musculoskeletal pain. The sham-controlled studies were generally low quality, and conclusions about other quantitative sensory tests could not be made.ObjectivesWe aimed to perform a sham-controlled study with the specific objective of investigating changes in PPT and TS short-term after lumbar SMT compared to sham manipulation in people with low back pain.MethodsThis was a double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing high-velocity low-amplitude lumbar SMT against sham manipulation in participants with low back pain. Primary outcome measures were PPT at the calf, lumbar spine and shoulder, and TS at the hands and feet. These were measured at baseline, then immediately, 15 min and 30 min post-intervention.ResultsEighty participants (42 females) were included in the analyses (mean age 37 years), with 40 participants allocated to each intervention group. Significant between-group differences were only observed for calf PPT, which could be explained by a decrease in PPT (increased sensitivity) after SMT and an increase after sham. Feet TS decreased significantly over time after both SMT and sham, and any other changes over time were inconsistent.ConclusionsOur results suggest that lumbar SMT does not have a short-term hypoalgesic effect, as measured with PPT and TS, when compared to sham manipulation in people with low back pain.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

20 keywords...

hide…