Introduction Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major health, social, and economic problem. Most of the subjects who suffer from chronic musculoskeletal pain present processes of central sensitization. Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation are the two most commonly used clinical measures of this. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effects of physical therapy on temporal summation (TS) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EBSCO, PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Collaboration Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and SCOPUS databases. Different mesh terms and key words were combined for the search strategy, with the aim of encompassing all studies that have used any type of physical therapy treatment in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and have measured both TS and CPM. Results Eighteen studies remained for qualitative analysis and 16 for quantitative analysis. Statistically significant differences with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained for TS (–0.21, 95% CI = –0.39 to –0.03, Z = 2.50, P = 0.02, N = 721) and CPM (0.34, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.56, Z = 2.99, P = 0.003, N = 680) in favor of physical therapy as compared with control. Manual therapy produces a slight improvement in TS, and physical therapy modalities in general improve CPM. No significant differences between the subgroups of the meta-analysis were found. The methodological quality of the studies was high. Conclusions Physical therapy produces a slight improvement in central sensitization (CS)–related variables, with TS decreased and CPM increased when compared with a control group in patients with CMP. Only significant differences in TS were identified in the manual therapy subgroup.

Background: manual therapy (MT) has been shown to have positive effects in patients with osteoarthritis (OA)-related pain, and its use in clinical settings is recommended. However, the mechanisms of action for how these positive effects occur are not yet well understood. The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of MT treatment on facilitatory nociception and endogenous pain modulation in patients with knee OA related pain. Methods: Twenty-eight patients with knee OA were included in this study. Pain intensity using the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), temporal summation (TS), conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and local (knee) and distant (elbow) hyperalgesia through the pressure pain threshold (PPT), were assessed to evaluate the pain modulatory system. Patients underwent four sessions of MT treatments within 3 weeks and were evaluated at the baseline, after the first session and after the fourth session. Results: the MT treatment reduced knee pain after the first session (p = 0.03) and after the fourth session (p = 0.04). TS decreased significantly after the fourth session of MT (p = 0.02), while a significant increase in the CPM assessment was detected after the fourth session (p = 0.05). No significant changes in the PPT over the knee and elbow were found in the follow-ups. Conclusions: The results from our study suggest that MT might be an effective and safe method for improving pain and for decreasing temporal summation.

Background: To evaluate the effectiveness of non-invasive neuro-adaptive electrostimulation (NAE) therapy for treating chronic pain and disability in patients with fibromyalgia. Method/design: A prospective, randomized, sham-controlled study was conducted in 37 women with fibromyalgia. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either active NAE (n = 20) or stimulation with a sham device (n = 17). Participants in the experimental arm received eight 30-minute sessions over 4 weeks (2 sessions per week). The sham group received eight 30-minute sessions of sham stimulation. Therapeutic effects on pain relief, disability, and quality of life were evaluated using outcome measures at baseline, at 4 weeks, and after 3 months’ follow-up. Results: The findings indicated a significant reduction of pain in the active NAE group compared with the sham group immediately post-intervention, with a difference on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of 3 points ( P = .001), and at 3 months’ follow-up ( P = .02). There were significant intragroup differences between the groups ( P < .05) at post-intervention. After the intervention, both groups presented significant reductions on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) with respect to baseline ( P = .004), but not at the 3-month follow-up. In the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in thumb variable we found significant differences between the groups at the 3-month follow-up ( P = .02). No additional benefits for conditioned pain modulation and disability were observed between groups at the 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, anxiety/depression and catastrophizing improved in both groups, but no differences between groups were found. Conclusions: In this fibromyalgia cohort, NAE therapy significantly improved pain and quality of life at 4 weeks, but not at 3-month follow-up, compared with the sham stimulation group. Future investigations are needed in larger populations to confirm these findings.

Objective The objective was to assess the effectiveness of neural mobilisation (NM) techniques in the management of musculoskeletal neck disorders with nerve-related symptoms (MND-NRS). Methods We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis, using pain intensity, disability, perceived function, cervical range of motion and mechanosensitivity as the main outcome measures. Results The systematic review included 22 studies (n = 978). More favourable outcomes were observed for NM on pain intensity compared with control interventions (standardised mean differences (SMDs) −0.92; 95% CI − 1.66-−0.18), but not compared with other treatments (OTs) (SMD 1.06; 95% CI − 0.02-2.15). Regarding neck pain intensity, no significant differences were found in favour of NM compared with OTs (SMD 0.37; 95% CI − 0.35-1.1). However, between-treatment differences were found in favour of OT on arm-pain intensity (SMD 0.57; 95% CI 0.08-1.05). In addition, the grouped MA did not show statistically significant differences between NM and OT outcomes on the cervical range of motion (SMD 0.16; 95% CI − 0.06-0.38). However, compared with no intervention, NM was associated with significantly improved outcomes in cervical rotation (SMD 0.91; 95% CI 0.61-1.22). Similar results were found regarding disability (SMD −0.08; 95% CI − 0.36-−0.20, and SMD −1.44; 95% CI − 2.28-−0.6, respectively). Finally, NM was associated with more favourable outcomes on mechanosensitivity compared with OT (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.15-1.42) and greater improvements in function compared with no intervention (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.16-1.62). Conclusions NM appeared to be effective to improve overall pain intensity when embedded in a physiotherapy treatment in the management of MND-NRS. When compared with no intervention, it was effective to improve neck rotation, disability, and function. However, it was not superior to other types of treatments in improving overall pain intensity, neck pain intensity, arm pain intensity, cervical range of motion and disability, except for mechanosensitivity.