Rogelio A Coronado1, Joel E Bialosky2, Michael E Robinson3, Steven Z George4. 1. R.A. Coronado, PT, PhD, CSCS, FAAOMPT, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Box 100154, Gainesville, FL 32610-0154 (USA). rcoronado@phhp.ufl.edu szgeorge@phhp.ufl.edu. 2. J.E. Bialosky, PT, PhD, OCS, FAAOMPT, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida. 3. M.E. Robinson, PhD, Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida. 4. S.Z. George, PT, PhD, Department of Physical Therapy and Center for Pain Research and Behavioral Health, University of Florida, Box 100154, Gainesville, FL 32610-0154 (USA). rcoronado@phhp.ufl.edu szgeorge@phhp.ufl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cluster analysis can be used to identify individuals similar in profile based on response to multiple pain sensitivity measures. There are limited investigations into how empirically derived pain sensitivity subgroups influence clinical outcomes for individuals with spine pain. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were: (1) to investigate empirically derived subgroups based on pressure and thermal pain sensitivity in individuals with spine pain and (2) to examine subgroup influence on 2-week clinical pain intensity and disability outcomes. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of data from 2 randomized trials was conducted. METHODS: Baseline and 2-week outcome data from 157 participants with low back pain (n=110) and neck pain (n=47) were examined. Participants completed demographic, psychological, and clinical information and were assessed using pain sensitivity protocols, including pressure (suprathreshold pressure pain) and thermal pain sensitivity (thermal heat threshold and tolerance, suprathreshold heat pain, temporal summation). A hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis was used to create subgroups based on pain sensitivity responses. Differences in data for baseline variables, clinical pain intensity, and disability were examined. RESULTS: Three pain sensitivity cluster groups were derived: low pain sensitivity, high thermal static sensitivity, and high pressure and thermal dynamic sensitivity. There were differences in the proportion of individuals meeting a 30% change in pain intensity, where fewer individuals within the high pressure and thermal dynamic sensitivity group (adjusted odds ratio=0.3; 95% confidence interval=0.1, 0.8) achieved successful outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Only 2-week outcomes are reported. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct pain sensitivity cluster groups for individuals with spine pain were identified, with the high pressure and thermal dynamic sensitivity group showing worse clinical outcome for pain intensity. Future studies should aim to confirm these findings.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Cluster analysis can be used to identify individuals similar in profile based on response to multiple pain sensitivity measures. There are limited investigations into how empirically derived pain sensitivity subgroups influence clinical outcomes for individuals with spine pain. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were: (1) to investigate empirically derived subgroups based on pressure and thermal pain sensitivity in individuals with spine pain and (2) to examine subgroup influence on 2-week clinical pain intensity and disability outcomes. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of data from 2 randomized trials was conducted. METHODS: Baseline and 2-week outcome data from 157 participants with low back pain (n=110) and neck pain (n=47) were examined. Participants completed demographic, psychological, and clinical information and were assessed using pain sensitivity protocols, including pressure (suprathreshold pressure pain) and thermal pain sensitivity (thermal heat threshold and tolerance, suprathreshold heat pain, temporal summation). A hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis was used to create subgroups based on pain sensitivity responses. Differences in data for baseline variables, clinical pain intensity, and disability were examined. RESULTS: Three pain sensitivity cluster groups were derived: low pain sensitivity, high thermal static sensitivity, and high pressure and thermal dynamic sensitivity. There were differences in the proportion of individuals meeting a 30% change in pain intensity, where fewer individuals within the high pressure and thermal dynamic sensitivity group (adjusted odds ratio=0.3; 95% confidence interval=0.1, 0.8) achieved successful outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Only 2-week outcomes are reported. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct pain sensitivity cluster groups for individuals with spine pain were identified, with the high pressure and thermal dynamic sensitivity group showing worse clinical outcome for pain intensity. Future studies should aim to confirm these findings.
Authors: Jennifer L Brown; Penny S Edwards; James W Atchison; Ann Lafayette-Lucey; Virgil T Wittmer; Michael E Robinson Journal: Pain Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Rogelio A Coronado; Steven Z George; Clinton J Devin; Stephen T Wegener; Kristin R Archer Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Rogelio A Coronado; Joel E Bialosky; Mark D Bishop; Joseph L Riley; Michael E Robinson; Lori A Michener; Steven Z George Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Eric Bair; Sheila Gaynor; Gary D Slade; Richard Ohrbach; Roger B Fillingim; Joel D Greenspan; Ronald Dubner; Shad B Smith; Luda Diatchenko; William Maixner Journal: Pain Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Laura A Frey-Law; Nicole L Bohr; Kathleen A Sluka; Keela Herr; Charles R Clark; Nicolas O Noiseux; John J Callaghan; M Bridget Zimmerman; Barbara A Rakel Journal: Pain Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Robin E Miller; Dawn S Brown; Scott W Keith; Sarah E Hegarty; Yamaja Setty; Claudia M Campbell; Suzanne M McCahan; Suhita Gayen-Betal; Hal Byck; Marie Stuart Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 6.998