MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7065424542

The effect of spinal manipulative therapy on heart rate variability and pain in patients with persistent or recurrent neck pain

2022· dissertation· en· W7065424542 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen Archive (Karolinska Institutet) · 2022
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueParticle Detector Development and Performance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHeart rate variabilityHeart rateAutonomic nervous systemQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trial
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Persistent or recurrent neck pain is a common reason to seek healthcare. Manual therapy in
\ncombination with exercises is recommended by clinical guidelines for this patient group. Autonomic dysregulation with reduced parasympathetic activity, increased sympathetic activity, and impaired conditioned pain modulation is seen in a range of chronic pain conditions such as persistent or recurrent neck pain. An immediate response to spinal manipulative therapy of the autonomic nervous system has been observed, but the evidence is of very low to moderate quality and the underlying mechanisms are unknown. Examining the long-term effect of spinal manipulative therapy on the autonomic nervous
\nsystem, pain, and disability is thus relevant, and measures of heart rate variability can provide
\nan objective measure of this relationship.
\n
\n
\n
\nThe aim of this project was to examine the effects on pain, disability, and heart rate variability of adding spinal manipulative therapy to home stretching exercises over a period of two weeks. Further, an explorative investigation into the relationship between changes in pain and changes in heart rate variability was undertaken. In addition the temporal stability and responsiveness of the conditioned pain modulation measurements was also investigated.
\n
\n
\n
\nMETHOD: A randomized controlled clinical trial was carried out in multidisciplinary primary care clinics. One group received home stretching exercises and spinal manipulative therapy, and the other group received home stretching exercises only. The subjective pain experience was investigated by assessing pain intensity (NRS-11) and the affective quality of pain (McGill questionnaire). Neck disability (NDI) and health status (EQ-5D) were also measured. Heart rate variability at rest was measured using a portable heart monitor. CPM was measured using a universal “clamp” from Clas Ohlson and a coldwater bath (0-2 ℃). The subjects received four treatments over two weeks. Linear mixed models were used to investigate the group by time interaction. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to investigate the temporal stability of the CPM test. The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board (Stockholm) (ref: 2018/2137-31).
\n
\n
\n
\nRESULTS: No statistically significant group effect was found for pain, disability, or any of the heart rate variability indices. No statistically significant association was found between changes in pain (NRS-11) and changes in HRV. The CPM test appears to be moderately stable over time for both subjects who experienced a clinically important difference and those who did not over a two-week treatment period.
\n
\n
\n
\nCONCLUSION: Adding spinal manipulative therapy to a two-week stretching protocol did not significantly improve heart rate variability, pain or disability in this well-controlled RCT. Further investigations found no significant association between treatment response from spinal manipulative therapy and home stretching exercises and HRV over two weeks. Further research on pain, disability and HRV should focus on subjects with higher pain intensity and a longer intervention period. Also, further investigation of the relationship between pain and HRV is warranted. The CPM utilized showed moderate temporal stability for this patient group. Changes in persistent or recurrent neck pain over two weeks were not associated with changes in the CPM test response.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,311
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,786

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,279
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen Archive (Karolinska Institutet)Même sujetParticle Detector Development and PerformanceTravaux en français237 207