De grootste kennisbank van het HBO

Inspiratie op jouw vakgebied

Vrij toegankelijk

Terug naar zoekresultatenDeel deze publicatie

Pain mechanisms in low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of mechanical quantitative sensory testing outcomes in people with non-specific low back pain

Rechten: Alle rechten voorbehouden

Pain mechanisms in low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of mechanical quantitative sensory testing outcomes in people with non-specific low back pain

Rechten: Alle rechten voorbehouden

Samenvatting

Study Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background
Quantitative mechanical sensory testing (QST) assesses sensory functioning and detects functional changes in (central) nociceptive processing. In the current low back pain literature it has been hypothesized that these functional changes might be apparent in people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), although the results are mixed.

Objective
The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to appraise and summarize the literature about QST outcomes in people with subacute and chronic NSLBP and healthy controls (HC).

Methods
This systematic review and meta-analysis was reported using PRISMA guidelines. Five databases were searched for relevant literature. Studies comparing mechanical QST-measures involving people with subacute and chronic low back pain and HC were included if 1) pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), 2) temporal summation (TS) and/or 3) conditioned pain modulation (CPM) were reported. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS). If possible, the results from different studies were pooled.

Results
Twenty-four studies were included. NOS scores varied between one and six points. Meta-analysis showed that people with NSLBP, compared to HC have significantly lower PPTs at remote sites and increased TS at the lower back. For example, PPTs measured at the scapula, were significantly lower in patients with NSLBP than in HC (pooled mean difference (MD): 119.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): (91.8, 146.6), P<0.00001.

Conclusion
This meta-analysis found that overall PPT measurements at remote body parts are significantly lower in the group with NSLBP compared with HC. TS and CPM measurements demonstrated mixed outcomes.

Level of Evidence
Therapy, level 3a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8876

Toon meer
OrganisatieHogeschool Rotterdam
LectoraatKenniscentrum Zorginnovatie
Gepubliceerd inJOSPT Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Vol. 2019, Uitgave: August 23
Datum2019-08-23
TypeArtikel
ISSN1938-1344
DOI10.2519/jospt.2019.8876
TaalEngels

Op de HBO Kennisbank vind je publicaties van 26 hogescholen

De grootste kennisbank van het HBO

Inspiratie op jouw vakgebied

Vrij toegankelijk