Nevner at kontekst og pasientens forventning om behandling har alt så si for effekten av behandling. Denne studien gjelder manipulering av ryggraden, men kan forventes å gjelde absolutt all behandling som gjøre på menneskekroppen hvor man tar på huden.
The 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.
A growing body of evidence supports spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) as an effective treatment for low back pain [1–6]. Furthermore, the evidence is particularly strong when patients are classified into subgroups by patterns suggesting the likelihood of a favorable response [2,3,6]. Despite the positive findings of clinical trials, the mechanisms through which SMT acts are not established.
Hypoalgesia has been associated with SMT and has a postulated involvement in the clinical effectiveness [7–16]. For example, Vicenzino et al  observed greater pain free grip and pain pressure threshold in the forearm following SMT to the cervical spine. A prior study by our group found hypoalgesia of c- fiber mediated pain as measured by lessening of temporal summation in the lower extremity following SMT to the lumbar spine . Temporal summation results from multiple painful stimuli of the same intensity applied at a frequency of less than 3 seconds and has been observed in both healthy subjects [17–19] and those experiencing chronic pain [20,21]. Activation of the dorsal horn of the spinal cord has been directly observed with temporal summation in animal studies [22–25]. Subsequently, we interpreted our prior findings of hypoalgesia of temporal summation following SMT in healthy participants as indicative of a pain inhibiting effect occurring at the dorsal horn.
A criticism of prior studies of SMT is a lack of consideration for the influence of non- specific effects such as placebo and expectation [26–28]. The failure to account for non- specific effects may be significant as expectation has demonstrated a robust influence in the general pain literature [29–40]. Specific to manual therapy, Kalauokalani et al  report on a secondary analysis of subjects with low back pain who were randomly assigned to receive either acupuncture or massage treatments. Subjects with higher expectations for the effectiveness of their assigned treatments demonstrated greater improvement in function. In our prior study, we attributed hypoalgesia of c- fiber mediated pain in response to SMT to a local spinal cord effect. However, a limitation of our prior study was the failure to account for the potential influence of non- specific effects. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine how subjects’ expectation about the effect of SMT would influence hypoalgesia. Similar to prior studies [7–15], we expected a hypoalgesic effect in response to SMT, however we hypothesized this effect would be greater in subjects receiving positive expectation regarding the SMT procedure as compared to those receiving neutral or negative expectation.
Effect of Instructional Set on Expected Pain in the Low Back. Change in expected pain in the low back following instructional set. Positive values indicate expectation of less pain. A statistical interaction occurred with participants receiving a positive expectation instructional set reporting expectations for less pain with quantitative sensory testing (QST) following spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and those receiving a negative expectation instructional set reporting expectations for greater pain. Error bars represent 1 standard error of the mean (SEM). * indicates significant change at p ≤ 0.05.
Change in Pain Perception in the Low Back and Lower Extremity by Expectation Instructional Set. Change in pain perception in the low back and lower extremity following spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Positive numbers indicate hypoalgesia, while negative numbers indicate hyperalgesia. A significant interaction was present in the low back suggesting that post SMT pain perception was dependent upon the group to which the participant was randomly assigned. Follow up pairwise comparison indicated a significant increase in pain perception in subjects receiving a negative expectation instructional set. No interaction was observed in the lower extremity of participants; however, a significant main effect occurred suggesting hypoalgesia regardless of group assignment. Error bars represent 1 standard error of the mean (SEM). * indicates a statistically significant change in pain perception in the low back following SMT at p ≤ 0.05.
This study provides preliminary evidence for the influence of a non- specific effect (expectation) on the hypoalgesia associated with a single session of SMT in normal subjects. We replicated our previous findings of hypoalgesia in the lower extremity associated with SMT to the low back. Additionally, the resultant hypoalgesia in the lower extremity was independent of an expectation instructional set directed at the low back. Conversely, participants receiving a negative expectation instructional set demonstrated hyperalgesia in the low back following SMT which was not observed in those receiving a positive or neutral instructional set.