Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18267029›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2008

The influence of expectation on spinal manipulation induced hypoalgesia: an experimental study in normal subjects.

Joel E Bialosky, Mark D Bishop, Michael E Robinson, Josh A Barabas, Steven Z George

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02396550 (Influence of Patient Expectations With Lateral Epicondylalgia in Applying Mobilization With Movement. Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 57 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02396550 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Influence of Patient Expectations With Lateral Epicondylalgia in Applying Mobilization With Movement. Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AlcalaRan2015 to 2016Enrolled66ConditionsTennis ElbowArmsPositive Expectations, Mobilization with movement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 142 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Changes in pain sensitivity following spinal manipulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology · 2012
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Expectations affect pain sensitivity changes during massage.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2023
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Immediate reduction in temporal sensory summation after thoracic spinal manipulation.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2011
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joel E BialoskyUniversity of Florida Department of Physical Therapy, Gainesville, Florida, USA. bialosky@phhp.ufl.edu
Mark D Bishop
Michael E Robinson
Josh A Barabas
Steven Z George
University of Florida · US

Funding

Training In Rehabilitation and Neuromuscular PlasticityT32HD043730 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI DAVID D FULLER · 2003 to 2026
$5.3M
Mechanisms of Neural Mobilization for Chronic PainR21AT002796 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI GEORGE, STEVEN Z · 2006 to 2007
$358k
NCCIH NIH HHS R21 AT002796NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD043730NICHD NIH HHS T32HD043730
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe mechanisms thorough which spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) exerts clinical effects are not established. A prior study has suggested a dorsal horn modulated effect; however, the role of subject expectation was not considered. The purpose of the current study was to determine the effect of subject expectation on hypoalgesia associated with SMT.

methodsSixty healthy subjects agreed to participate and underwent quantitative sensory testing (QST) to their leg and low back. Next, participants were randomly assigned to receive a positive, negative, or neutral expectation instructional set regarding the effects of a specific SMT technique on pain perception. Following the instructional set, all subjects received SMT and underwent repeat QST.

resultsNo interaction (p = 0.38) between group assignment and pain response was present in the lower extremity following SMT; however, a main effect (p < 0.01) for hypoalgesia was present. A significant interaction was present between change in pain perception and group assignment in the low back (p = 0.01) with participants receiving a negative expectation instructional set demonstrating significant hyperalgesia (p < 0.01).

conclusionThe current study replicates prior findings of c- fiber mediated hypoalgesia in the lower extremity following SMT and this occurred regardless of expectation. A significant increase in pain perception occurred following SMT in the low back of participants receiving negative expectation suggesting a potential influence of expectation on SMT induced hypoalgesia in the body area to which the expectation is directed.

Indexed as

CognitionAdultFemaleHumansLumbosacral RegionMaleManipulation, SpinalPain Threshold

Identifiers

PMID18267029
PMCPMC2270829
OpenAlexW2039082146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.