RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Given the complex and unclear etiology of neck pain, it is important to understand the differences in central sensitization as well as psychosocial factors in individuals with chronic neck pain and healthy controls. The purpose of this study was to benchmark differences in central sensitization, psychosocial factors, and range of motion between people with nonspecific chronic neck pain and healthy controls and to analyze the correlation between pain intensity, neck disability, and psychosocial factors in people with chronic neck pain. METHODS: Thirty individuals with chronic neck pain and 30 healthy controls were included in this case-control study. Outcome measures were as follows: central sensitization (pressure pain threshold, temporal summation, and conditioned pain modulation), psychosocial factors (depressive symptoms, pain catastrophizing, and quality of life), and active cervical range of motion. RESULTS: People with neck pain had lower local pressure pain threshold, a decrease in conditioned pain modulation, more depressive symptoms, greater pain catastrophizing, lower quality of life, and reduced range of motion for neck rotation when compared with healthy controls. In people with neck pain, moderate correlations were observed between pain intensity and quality of life (ρ = -0.479), disability and pain catastrophizing (ρ = 0.379), and disability and quality of life (ρ = -0.456). CONCLUSIONS: People with neck pain have local hyperalgesia, impaired conditioning pain modulation, depressive symptoms, pain catastrophizing, low quality of life, and reduced active range of motion during neck rotation, which should be taken into account during assessment and treatment. IMPACT: This study shows that important outcomes, such as central sensitization and psychosocial factors, should be considered during assessment and treatment of individuals with nonspecific chronic neck pain. In addition, pain intensity and neck disability are correlated with psychosocial factors.
RESUMO
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis analysing the existing data on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or interferential current (IFC) for chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or neck pain (CNP) taking into account intensity and timing of stimulation, examining pain, function and disability. Seven electronic databases were searched for TENS or IFC treatment in non-specific CLBP or CNP. Four reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TENS or IFC intervention in adult individuals with non-specific CLBP or CNP. Primary outcomes were for self-reported pain intensity and back-specific disability. Two reviewers performed quality assessment, and two reviewers extracted data using a standardized form. Nine RCTs were selected (eight CLBP; one CNP), and seven studies with complete data sets were included for meta-analysis (655 participants). For CLBP, meta-analysis shows TENS/IFC intervention, independent of time of assessment, was significantly different from placebo/control (p < 0.02). TENS/IFC intervention was better than placebo/control, during therapy (p = 0.02), but not immediately after therapy (p = 0.08), or 1-3 months after therapy (p = 0.99). Analysis for adequate stimulation parameters was not significantly different, and there was no effect on disability. This systematic review provides inconclusive evidence of TENS benefits in low back pain patients because the quality of the studies was low, and adequate parameters and timing of assessment were not uniformly used or reported. Without additional high-quality clinical trials using sufficient sample sizes and adequate parameters and outcome assessments, the outcomes of this review are likely to remain unchanged. SIGNIFICANCE: These data highlight the need for additional high-quality RCTs to examine the effects of TENS in CLBP. Trials should consider intensity of stimulation, timing of outcome assessment and assessment of pain, disability and function.