Pressure Algometer

Salma Bouqartacha et al. (2026) · Chiropractic & manual therapies

This randomized mechanistic cross-over trial with 89 adults explored how two hands-on neck treatments differ right after they are delivered. Chronic neck pain, defined here as pain lasting at least 12 weeks, is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Spinal manipulation (SM) is a single quick, shallow thrust applied to a joint, and spinal mobilization (Smob) is a slower, repeated rocking pressure on the same area. Both are recommended in clinical guidelines, but they are often lumped together, so little was known about how their effects on pain, movement and muscle activity compare. Participants were aged 18 to 65, with an average of 35 years, and 65% were women. They were recruited in Zurich, Switzerland, and Trois-Rivieres, Canada. Each person attended two sessions three days apart, receiving SM in one and Smob in the other in random order. SM was one thrust to the most painful neck joint while lying face up, and Smob was 30 seconds of repeated pressure on the same level while lying face down. Pain was rated from 0 to 10, and neck movement, tenderness to pressure, grip strength and muscle electrical activity were measured before and after. Pain dropped by 0.79 points after SM and 0.37 points after Smob, a gap of 0.41 points (p = 0.002), which stayed below the 1.3 points considered clinically meaningful. Neck movement improved after both treatments, by about 4.6 degrees after SM and 3.7 degrees after Smob in bending forward and back, with no difference between them. Neck muscles responded more strongly during SM, with activity in the sternocleidomastoid about six times higher (0.144 versus 0.023). Tenderness and grip strength changed inconsistently, and the grip decrease of 1.13 kg was far under the 6 kg detectable change. Participants' own global impression of change favored SM (p < 0.001) but also stayed below the clinical threshold. Upper trapezius activity was likewise higher during SM (0.083 versus 0.024). No serious adverse events were reported. The authors state that statistically significant differences did not reach clinical significance, so the trial cannot support conclusions about which treatment works better in practice. Only immediate effects after one session were measured, many outcomes were tested, participants could tell the treatments apart, and baseline disability was mostly mild to moderate. Clinician training also differed between sites. The authors propose that future trials examine several sessions of each treatment, since a multi-session or combined approach may reach clinical relevance.

Ángel Rodríguez-Ruiz et al. (2024) · Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)

This randomized controlled trial with 44 women explored whether a four-week "HAMMAM" program -- combining hydrotherapy (therapeutic water bathing at varying temperatures) and Swedish massage (a full-body technique using kneading, stroking, and tapping to relax muscle tissue and improve circulation) -- could ease pain in women with endometriosis-related chronic pelvic pain that had not improved with standard medical treatment. Endometriosis is a condition where tissue similar to the uterine lining grows outside the uterus, commonly causing pain during menstruation (dysmenorrhea, governing cyclical cramping) and intercourse (dyspareunia) that standard analgesics and hormonal therapy fail to relieve in roughly a third to half of patients. Women aged 20-50 with confirmed endometriosis and pelvic pain rated at least 4 out of 10 were randomly assigned to the HAMMAM group (21 women) or a control group continuing usual care (23 women) at a hospital in Granada, Spain. The HAMMAM group attended three 90-minute sessions over four weeks at a bathhouse: a 60-75 minute circuit of warm, hot, and cold water baths plus a steam room, then a 15-minute Swedish massage with essential oils; the last session added a traditional exfoliating scrub. Pain was measured on a 0-10 scale, and pressure sensitivity with a handheld algometer. The HAMMAM group reported significantly less menstrual pain (p = 0.035, a large effect) and pain during intercourse (p = 0.020, a moderate-to-large effect) after the program compared with the control group. Pain interfering with sleep also dropped notably (p = 0.018), and pressure pain thresholds in the pelvic region rose (p = 0.029, meaning the area became less sensitive to pressure -- a sign of reduced pain sensitization), with the strongest change at the left groin ligament (p = 0.006). Everyone attended all sessions (100% adherence) and rated satisfaction at 9.71 out of 10, with no adverse events. However, overall pelvic pain ratings, catastrophic thinking about pain, general subjective well-being, and endometriosis-specific quality of life did not change significantly, showing the benefits were concentrated in specific pain measures rather than global wellness. For women whose endometriosis pain persists despite conventional treatment, this suggests a short, low-intensity spa-style program combining water therapy and massage may meaningfully ease menstrual and intercourse pain and pain-disrupted sleep, with high satisfaction and no safety concerns. Because hydrotherapy and massage were only tested together, it is not yet known which component -- or their combination -- drives the benefit, and the small, single-site sample limits how broadly these results apply. Larger trials testing each therapy alone are needed before firm clinical recommendations can be made.

Fatma Shewail et al. (2023) · BMC musculoskeletal disorders

This randomized trial with 33 college students compared two popular hands-on treatments for chronic neck pain: classic myofascial release, where a therapist applies sustained manual pressure into the connective tissue, and instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM), where the same work is done with smooth, contoured metal or plastic tools. The students, averaging 21 years old, had all developed persistent mechanical neck pain while studying remotely during COVID-19 restrictions — the classic screen-hunched population. Each participant received eight sessions over four weeks targeting the upper trapezius and levator scapulae — the muscles running from neck to shoulder blade that carry most desk-posture strain. Researchers measured pain on a visual analog scale, day-to-day function with the Neck Disability Index, and pressure pain threshold with an algometer, an instrument that quantifies how much pressure the tissue tolerates before hurting. Both groups got better on all three measures — but neither treatment beat the other. The between-group comparison showed no statistically significant difference in pain, function, or pressure threshold (p>0.05). The researchers were refreshingly honest about the catch: with no untreated control group, the improvements both groups experienced cannot be confidently credited to the treatments rather than natural recovery or the simple passage of four weeks. They grade their own evidence at level 2b — a candor worth noting, since many small trials in this space claim more than their design supports, and this one deliberately does not. For anyone weighing these therapies, the takeaway is practical: IASTM's specialized tools showed no advantage over a skilled therapist's hands for chronic mechanical neck pain, so choose based on practitioner expertise, comfort, and cost rather than technique hype. And for the field, this study marks a gap worth filling — a three-arm trial adding a control group would answer whether either technique beats watchful waiting, which this design honestly could not.