Placebo response to manual therapy: Something out of nothing?

Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 02/2011; 19(1):11-9. DOI: 10.1179/2042618610Y.0000000001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The mechanisms through which manual therapy inhibits musculoskeletal pain are likely multifaceted and related to the interaction between the intervention, the patient, the practitioner, and the environment. Placebo is traditionally considered an inert intervention; however, the pain research literature suggests that placebo is an active hypoalgesic agent. Placebo response likely plays a role in all interventions for pain and we suggest that the same is true for the treatment effects associated with manual therapy. The magnitude of a placebo response may be influenced by negative mood, expectation, and conditioning. We suggest that manual therapists conceptualize placebo not only as a comparative intervention, but also as a potential active mechanism to partially account for treatment effects associated with manual therapy. We are not suggesting manual therapists include known sham or ineffective interventions in their clinical practice, but take steps to maximize placebo responses to reduce pain.

  • Source
    The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 05/2011; 19(2):120-1. DOI:10.1179/106698111X12998437860794
  • Source
    The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 11/2011; 19(4):238. DOI:10.1179/106698111X13129729552100
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: What are the benefits and harms of neural tissue management in the short term for treating nerve-related neck and arm pain? Randomised controlled trial. Sixty participants with non-traumatic nerve-related neck and unilateral arm pain were randomised to experimental (n=40) or control (n=20) groups. Both groups were advised to continue usual activities. The experimental group also received education, manual therapy, and nerve gliding exercises in 4 treatments over 2 weeks. Primary outcomes were participant-reported improvement and worsening on a Global Rating of Change scale. Secondary outcomes were neck pain, arm pain, the Neck Disability Index, the Patient-Specific Functional Scale, and adverse events related to treatment. Follow-up occurred 3-4 weeks after baseline. Numbers needed to treat favoured the experimental intervention for participant-reported improvement (2.7, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.5), neck pain (3.6, 95% CI 2.1 to 10), arm pain (3.6, 95% CI 2.1 to 10), Neck Disability Index (4.3, 95% CI 2.4 to 18.2), and Patient-Specific Functional Scale (3.0, 95% CI 1.9 to 6.7). The prevalence of worsening in the experimental (13%) and control (20%) groups were not different (RD -7%, 95% CI -28 to 13). Adverse events had minimal impact on daily activities and did not reduce the chance of improving with the experimental intervention (RR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.84). These results enable physiotherapists to inform patients that neural tissue management provides immediate clinically relevant benefits beyond advice to remain active with no evidence of harmful effects. ACTRN 12610000446066.
    Journal of physiotherapy 03/2012; 58(1):23-31. DOI:10.1016/S1836-9553(12)70069-3 · 2.89 Impact Factor
Show more


Available from