The METRIC Study Protocol

Chronic Low-back Pain Clinical Trial

— METRIC  

Official title:

The METRIC Study Protocol: an Explanatory Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating the Neurophysiological Mechanisms Underlying the Therapeutic Effects of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05986370
• Other study ID #: METRIC
• Status: Recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: October 25, 2023
• Est. completion date: December 31, 2026

Study information

• Verified date: December 2023
• Source: Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
• Contact: Benjamin Provencher
• Phone: 1-819-376-5011
• Email: metric[@]uqtr.ca
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to test the effects of spinal manipulative therapy in individuals with chronic primary low back pain and determine the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying pain relief. The main questions it aims to answer are: • Is pain relief produced by spinal manipulative therapy in patients with chronic primary low back pain caused by a reduction of C-fiber-related nociceptive processing? • Are these effects greater when spinal manipulative therapy is applied to the whole spine where it is clinically indicated compared with lumbar spine only? • Are these effects greater after 36 treatments over 3 months compared with 12 treatments over 1 month. Participants will receive spinal manipulative therapy (all clinically indicated spine segments or back only) or a control intervention. A group of healthy volunteers will be recruited to assess secondary outcome measures over the same time period, as reference data for comparisons. Researchers will compare the two groups receiving spinal manipulative therapy to the group receiving the control intervention to see if clinical pain relief and the reduction of temporal summation of second pain (produced experimentally) is significantly greater with spinal manipulative therapy.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Recruiting
• Enrollment: 112
• Est. completion date: December 31, 2026
• Est. primary completion date: September 29, 2025
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years to 60 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Duration of current low back pain (LBP) episode = 6 months;
• Average LBP intensity during the last 7 days = 3/10;
• (For healthy volunteers only) To be of the same sex and age (± 1 year) as a participant with low back pain.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Diagnosis of back conditions other than chronic primary LBP e.g., failed back surgery syndrome, spondylosis, spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, herniated disc, infection, etc.;
• Presence of pain in another body location that is more severe than the pain in the lower back;
• Presence of a neurological deficit i.e., sensation loss, muscle weakness, decreased deep tendon reflexes;
• Presence of contraindications to spinal manipulative therapy e.g., recent fracture, history of spinal surgery, cauda equina syndrome, inflammatory arthritis, taking anticoagulant medication, active cancer, moderate to severe osteoporosis, abdominal aortic aneurysm;
• Underwent surgery in the last 3 months;
• Pregnancy, = 3 months post-partum or planning to get pregnant in the next 12 months;
• History of spinal manipulative therapy in the past 12 months;
• Scoliosis = 20°;
• BMI = 40;
• Insufficient language skills in French to complete the questionnaires;
• Open or pending litigation for LBP or seeking/receiving disability compensation;
• Diagnosis of an illness affecting the sensorimotor functions e.g., diabetes, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis;
• Diagnosis of mental health disorders (with the exception of anxiety and depression);
• Current drug or alcohol dependence;
• Skin of type I on the Fitzpatrick scale;
• (For healthy volunteers only) Regular use of pain medication or usage in the 48 h prior to data collection;
• (For healthy volunteers only) History of chronic pain;
• (For healthy volunteers only) Acute pain on the days of data collection.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Back Pain
• Chronic Low-back Pain
• Low Back Pain

Intervention

Procedure:
• lumbar spinal manipulative therapy
Spinal manipulative therapy involves the application of spinal manipulation over several sessions. Spinal manipulation is defined as a high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust performed by a clinician to move a segment of the spine in a specific direction. This type of intervention often generates cavitation sounds (audible pops).
• sham spinal manipulative therapy
Sham spinal manipulative therapy (sham SMT), was designed to be structurally equivalent to SMT, i.e., to attend to the same body regions with the same amount of contact as well as to have the same number, frequency and length of sessions. SMT and sham SMT will be provided by the same treatment provider and will appear to be similarly tailored to the participants' condition. Sham SMT does not share the component of interest of SMT, i.e., the activation of deep high-threshold mechanoreceptors via high-velocity, low-amplitude thrusts applied to the spine. Yet, it shares all the other components not of interest in this study that may contribute to the placebo response, such as therapeutic alliance, contextual factors, physical touch, and expectations. Furthermore, deception will be used to balance expectations and enhance blinding.
• full spine spinal manipulative therapy
Spinal manipulative therapy involves the application of spinal manipulation over several sessions. Spinal manipulation is defined as a high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust performed by a clinician to move a segment of the spine in a specific direction. This type of intervention often generates cavitation sounds (audible pops).

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Canada	Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières	Trois-Rivières	Quebec

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Canada, 

References & Publications (41)

Buchbinder R, Underwood M, Hartvigsen J, Maher CG. The Lancet Series call to action to reduce low value care for low back pain: an update. Pain. 2020 Sep;161 Suppl 1(1):S57-S64. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001869. No abstract available. — View Citation

Cormier S, Lavigne GL, Choiniere M, Rainville P. Expectations predict chronic pain treatment outcomes. Pain. 2016 Feb;157(2):329-338. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000379. — View Citation

Corp N, Mansell G, Stynes S, Wynne-Jones G, Morso L, Hill JC, van der Windt DA. Evidence-based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe: A systematic review of guidelines. Eur J Pain. 2021 Feb;25(2):275-295. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1679. Epub 2020 Nov 12. — View Citation

Denis I, Fortin L. Development of a French-Canadian version of the Oswestry Disability Index: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Apr 1;37(7):E439-44. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318233eaf9. — View Citation

Dieleman JL, Cao J, Chapin A, Chen C, Li Z, Liu A, Horst C, Kaldjian A, Matyasz T, Scott KW, Bui AL, Campbell M, Duber HC, Dunn AC, Flaxman AD, Fitzmaurice C, Naghavi M, Sadat N, Shieh P, Squires E, Yeung K, Murray CJL. US Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016. JAMA. 2020 Mar 3;323(9):863-884. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0734. — View Citation

Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, Kerns RD, Stucki G, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Carr DB, Chandler J, Cowan P, Dionne R, Galer BS, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Kramer LD, Manning DC, Martin S, McCormick CG, McDermott MP, McGrath P, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Robbins W, Robinson JP, Rothman M, Royal MA, Simon L, Stauffer JW, Stein W, Tollett J, Wernicke J, Witter J; IMMPACT. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005 Jan;113(1-2):9-19. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012. No abstract available. — View Citation

Fitzcharles MA, Cohen SP, Clauw DJ, Littlejohn G, Usui C, Hauser W. Chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: a new concept of nonstructural regional pain. Pain Rep. 2022 Aug 9;7(5):e1024. doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000001024. eCollection 2022 Sep-Oct. — View Citation

Funabashi M, Gorrell LM, Pohlman KA, Bergna A, Heneghan NR. Definition and classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization: A scoping review. PLoS One. 2022 Jul 15;17(7):e0270671. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270671. eCollection 2022. — View Citation

George SZ, Fritz JM, Silfies SP, Schneider MJ, Beneciuk JM, Lentz TA, Gilliam JR, Hendren S, Norman KS. Interventions for the Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Revision 2021. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2021 Nov;51(11):CPG1-CPG60. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2021.0304. — View Citation

Gevers-Montoro C, Provencher B, Descarreaux M, Ortega de Mues A, Piche M. Neurophysiological mechanisms of chiropractic spinal manipulation for spine pain. Eur J Pain. 2021 Aug;25(7):1429-1448. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1773. Epub 2021 Apr 15. — View Citation

Gevers-Montoro C, Provencher B, Northon S, Stedile-Lovatel JP, Ortega de Mues A, Piche M. Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation Prevents Secondary Hyperalgesia Induced by Topical Capsaicin in Healthy Individuals. Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2021 Jul 20;2:702429. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2021.702429. eCollection 2021. — View Citation

Graven-Nielsen T. Mechanisms and manifestations in musculoskeletal pain: from experimental to clinical pain settings. Pain. 2022 Nov 1;163(Suppl 1):S29-S45. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002690. Epub 2022 May 15. No abstract available. — View Citation

Greco CM, Yu L, Johnston KL, Dodds NE, Morone NE, Glick RM, Schneider MJ, Klem ML, McFarland CE, Lawrence S, Colditz J, Maihoefer CC, Jonas WB, Ryan ND, Pilkonis PA. Measuring nonspecific factors in treatment: item banks that assess the healthcare experience and attitudes from the patient's perspective. Qual Life Res. 2016 Jul;25(7):1625-34. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1178-1. Epub 2015 Nov 12. — View Citation

Haas M, Vavrek D, Peterson D, Polissar N, Neradilek MB. Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 2014 Jul 1;14(7):1106-16. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.468. Epub 2013 Oct 16. — View Citation

Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, Hoy D, Karppinen J, Pransky G, Sieper J, Smeets RJ, Underwood M; Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2356-2367. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X. Epub 2018 Mar 21. — View Citation

Hohenschurz-Schmidt D, Vase L, Scott W, Annoni M, Ajayi OK, Barth J, Bennell K, Berna C, Bialosky J, Braithwaite F, Finnerup NB, Williams ACC, Carlino E, Cerritelli F, Chaibi A, Cherkin D, Colloca L, Cote P, Darnall BD, Evans R, Fabre L, Faria V, French S, Gerger H, Hauser W, Hinman RS, Ho D, Janssens T, Jensen K, Johnston C, Juhl Lunde S, Keefe F, Kerns RD, Koechlin H, Kongsted A, Michener LA, Moerman DE, Musial F, Newell D, Nicholas M, Palermo TM, Palermo S, Peerdeman KJ, Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Puhl AA, Roberts L, Rossettini G, Tomczak Matthiesen S, Underwood M, Vaucher P, Vollert J, Wartolowska K, Weimer K, Werner CP, Rice ASC, Draper-Rodi J. Recommendations for the development, implementation, and reporting of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials of physical, psychological, and self-management therapies: the CoPPS Statement. BMJ. 2023 May 25;381:e072108. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072108. No abstract available. — View Citation

Hurwitz EL, Randhawa K, Yu H, Cote P, Haldeman S. The Global Spine Care Initiative: a summary of the global burden of low back and neck pain studies. Eur Spine J. 2018 Sep;27(Suppl 6):796-801. doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5432-9. Epub 2018 Feb 26. — View Citation

Korownyk CS, Montgomery L, Young J, Moore S, Singer AG, MacDougall P, Darling S, Ellis K, Myers J, Rochford C, Taillefer MC, Allan GM, Perry D, Moe SS, Ton J, Kolber MR, Kirkwood J, Thomas B, Garrison S, McCormack JP, Falk J, Dugre N, Sept L, Turgeon RD, Paige A, Potter J, Nickonchuk T, Train AD, Weresch J, Chan K, Lindblad AJ. PEER simplified chronic pain guideline: Management of chronic low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care. Can Fam Physician. 2022 Mar;68(3):179-190. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6803179. — View Citation

Kosek E, Clauw D, Nijs J, Baron R, Gilron I, Harris RE, Mico JA, Rice ASC, Sterling M. Chronic nociplastic pain affecting the musculoskeletal system: clinical criteria and grading system. Pain. 2021 Nov 1;162(11):2629-2634. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002324. No abstract available. — View Citation

Latremoliere A, Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: a generator of pain hypersensitivity by central neural plasticity. J Pain. 2009 Sep;10(9):895-926. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.06.012. — View Citation

McPhee ME, Vaegter HB, Graven-Nielsen T. Alterations in pronociceptive and antinociceptive mechanisms in patients with low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Pain. 2020 Mar;161(3):464-475. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001737. — View Citation

Mucke M, Cuhls H, Radbruch L, Baron R, Maier C, Tolle T, Treede RD, Rolke R. Quantitative sensory testing (QST). English version. Schmerz. 2021 Nov;35(Suppl 3):153-160. doi: 10.1007/s00482-015-0093-2. — View Citation

Nicholas M, Vlaeyen JWS, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Benoliel R, Cohen M, Evers S, Giamberardino MA, Goebel A, Korwisi B, Perrot S, Svensson P, Wang SJ, Treede RD; IASP Taskforce for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic primary pain. Pain. 2019 Jan;160(1):28-37. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001390. — View Citation

Nijs J, Apeldoorn A, Hallegraeff H, Clark J, Smeets R, Malfliet A, Girbes EL, De Kooning M, Ickmans K. Low back pain: guidelines for the clinical classification of predominant neuropathic, nociceptive, or central sensitization pain. Pain Physician. 2015 May-Jun;18(3):E333-46. — View Citation

Nim CG, Kawchuk GN, Schiottz-Christensen B, O'Neill S. The effect on clinical outcomes when targeting spinal manipulation at stiffness or pain sensitivity: a randomized trial. Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 3;10(1):14615. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71557-y. — View Citation

Ozudogru A, Canli M, Ceylan I, Kuzu S, Alkan H, Karacay BC. Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test in people with non-specific chronic low back pain-a cross-sectional test-retest reliability study. Ir J Med Sci. 2023 Aug;192(4):1903-1908. doi: 10.1007/s11845-022-03223-3. Epub 2022 Nov 15. — View Citation

Plaghki L, Mouraux A. EEG and laser stimulation as tools for pain research. Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2005 Jan;6(1):58-64. — View Citation

Plaghki L, Mouraux A. How do we selectively activate skin nociceptors with a high power infrared laser? Physiology and biophysics of laser stimulation. Neurophysiol Clin. 2003 Dec;33(6):269-77. doi: 10.1016/j.neucli.2003.10.003. — View Citation

Poquet N, Lin C. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). J Physiother. 2016 Jan;62(1):52. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2015.07.001. Epub 2015 Aug 21. No abstract available. — View Citation

Provencher B, Northon S, Gevers Montoro C, O'Shaughnessy J, Piche M. Effects of chiropractic spinal manipulation on laser-evoked pain and brain activity. J Physiol Sci. 2021 Jun 24;71(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s12576-021-00804-2. — View Citation

Provencher B, Northon S, Piche M. Segmental Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation Does not Reduce Pain Amplification and the Associated Pain-Related Brain Activity in a Capsaicin-Heat Pain Model. Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2021 Nov 1;2:733727. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2021.733727. eCollection 2021. — View Citation

Puhl AA, Reinhart CJ, Doan JB, Vernon H. The quality of placebos used in randomized, controlled trials of lumbar and pelvic joint thrust manipulation-a systematic review. Spine J. 2017 Mar;17(3):445-456. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.11.003. Epub 2016 Nov 22. — View Citation

Schaffler K, Nicolas LB, Borta A, Brand T, Reitmeir P, Roebling R, Scholpp J. Investigation of the predictive validity of laser-EPs in normal, UVB-inflamed and capsaicin-irritated skin with four analgesic compounds in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jul;83(7):1424-1435. doi: 10.1111/bcp.13247. Epub 2017 Feb 27. — View Citation

Shraim MA, Masse-Alarie H, Hall LM, Hodges PW. Systematic Review and Synthesis of Mechanism-based Classification Systems for Pain Experienced in the Musculoskeletal System. Clin J Pain. 2020 Oct;36(10):793-812. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000860. — View Citation

Starkweather AR, Heineman A, Storey S, Rubia G, Lyon DE, Greenspan J, Dorsey SG. Methods to measure peripheral and central sensitization using quantitative sensory testing: A focus on individuals with low back pain. Appl Nurs Res. 2016 Feb;29:237-41. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2015.03.013. Epub 2015 Apr 8. — View Citation

Stevans JM, Delitto A, Khoja SS, Patterson CG, Smith CN, Schneider MJ, Freburger JK, Greco CM, Freel JA, Sowa GA, Wasan AD, Brennan GP, Hunter SJ, Minick KI, Wegener ST, Ephraim PL, Friedman M, Beneciuk JM, George SZ, Saper RB. Risk Factors Associated With Transition From Acute to Chronic Low Back Pain in US Patients Seeking Primary Care. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Feb 1;4(2):e2037371. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37371. — View Citation

Strand LI, Moe-Nilssen R, Ljunggren AE. Back Performance Scale for the assessment of mobility-related activities in people with back pain. Phys Ther. 2002 Dec;82(12):1213-23. — View Citation

Verdugo RJ, Matamala JM, Inui K, Kakigi R, Valls-Sole J, Hansson P, Nilsen KB, Lombardi R, Lauria G, Petropoulos IN, Malik RA, Treede RD, Baumgartner U, Jara PA, Campero M. Review of techniques useful for the assessment of sensory small fiber neuropathies: Report from an IFCN expert group. Clin Neurophysiol. 2022 Apr;136:13-38. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2022.01.002. Epub 2022 Jan 19. — View Citation

Vlaeyen JWS, Crombez G, Linton SJ. The fear-avoidance model of pain. Pain. 2016 Aug;157(8):1588-1589. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000574. No abstract available. — View Citation

Wang YP, Gorenstein C. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory-II: a comprehensive review. Braz J Psychiatry. 2013 Oct-Dec;35(4):416-31. doi: 10.1590/1516-4446-2012-1048. Epub 2013 Dec 23. — View Citation

Wheeler CHB, Williams ACC, Morley SJ. Meta-analysis of the psychometric properties of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and associations with participant characteristics. Pain. 2019 Sep;160(9):1946-1953. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001494. — View Citation

* Note: There are 41 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Other	Adverse events (AE)	Participants will be informed of the risk of AE and the importance to communicate any unpleasant or abnormal sensation occurring in the hours or days following a treatment. Mild AE are defined as transient reactions (= 48 h) that do not require further treatment. Moderate AE are defined as reactions lasting more than 48 h, limiting function or daily activity and possibly requiring additional care. Severe AE are defined as reactions requiring hospital admission, life threatening, or causing long-lasting disability.	1- , 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-, 11-, 12-, 13-weeks post-randomization.
Other	Blinding	Blinding will be assessed by asking these questions: 1) Do you think that you received a real chiropractic treatment for low back pain? (yes / no) 2) How certain are you on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 indicates certainty of not having received a chiropractic treatment, 5 indicates absolute uncertainty, and 10 absolute certainty of having received a chiropractic treatment	After the last treatment session (12-weeks post-randomization)
Other	Number of other treatments for low back pain	Participants will be informed about the possibility to seek care for their low back pain outside the study at any point, if necessary. Based on recent Canadian practice guidelines for chronic LBP, exercise and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) will be recommended as first alternatives to interventions provided in the study. However, participants may receive other treatments. The number of concomitant treatments will be measured once a week by asking these questions: In the past 7 days, have you used or received any other treatment for low back pain than the one provided in this study? (yes / no); If so, please specify the number of treatments you received (for example: the number of pills taken, the number of therapy sessions, etc.).	1- , 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-, 11-, 12-weeks post-randomization.
Primary	low back pain intensity	In accordance with recommendations for chronic pain trials, participants will be instructed to rate the intensity of their LBP using a numerical rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). As in the brief pain inventory (BPI), they will be instructed to rate their pain: 1) right now; 2) on average over the last 7 days; 3) at its worst over the last 7 days; 4) at its best over the last 7 days.	baseline, 1- , 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-, 11-, 12-, 26-, 39-, 52- and 64-weeks post-randomization.
Primary	temporal summation of second pain	Participants will receive a total of 160 painful laser stimuli, 80 single-pulse stimuli and 80 pulse trains (3 pulses delivered at 0.67 Hz). After each stimulus, participants will be prompted to rate second pain with the display of a numerical pain rating scale. The pain ratings of single pulses will be subtracted from the pain ratings of pulse trains to estimate the intensity of the temporal summation of second pain.	baseline, 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	low back pain frequency and duration	A modified version of the pain frequency-severity-duration scale will be used. Participants will be instructed to answer these 3 questions: Is the pain recurrent (it comes in episodes) or continuous (it is always present)?; How many days in the past week have you had low back pain? (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 days; a higher score means a worse outcome); On average, how many hours per day does the pain last? (0; 1-4; 5-8; 9-12; 13-16; 17-20; 21-24 hours; a higher score means a worse outcome)	baseline, 1- , 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-, 11-, 12-, 26-, 39-, 52- and 64-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs)	PPT will be measured using a handheld digital algometer (Wagner Pain TestTM FPX, Greenwich, Connecticut, USA) and a standardized protocol. The algometer will be applied perpendicularly to the skin of the first test location and the pressure increased at approximately 50 kPa/s until pain is reported by the participant. This procedure will be repeated three times at the same test location. The PPT will be the average of the values obtained during these 3 trials. The same procedures will be repeated at the two other test locations. PPT will be tested on three different body locations: 1) Over the spinous process of the most painful vertebra between L1 and S1; 2) On the right lower limb in the dermatome corresponding to the level of the most painful vertebra; 3) in the center of the right thenar eminence.	baseline, 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	C-fiber-related brain responses	Electroencephalography (EEG) will be recorded using a 64-channel BrainVision system with active Ag-AgCl electrodes mounted on an actiCAP, according to the International 10-20 system (Brain Products, Gilching, Germany). Electrodes will be nose-referenced, and the ground will be set at FPz. Signals will be sampled at 500 Hz. Eye movements and blinks will be recorded using electrooculography (EOG). Electrode impedance will be kept below 20 kO. Closed eyes resting state EEG will be recorded for 5 min prior to laser stimuli for exploratory EEG analyses. EEG activity will be recorded continuously. The outcome of interest from laser-evoked-brain activity is the response evoked by C-fiber activation. Laser-evoked potentials (LEP) and event-related spectral perturbations (ERSP) will be analyzed using validated methods.	baseline, 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)	Self-reported low back pain related disability will be evaluated using the French-Canadian version of the ODI (0-100%; a higher score means a worse outcome).	baseline, 4-, 12-, 26-, 39-, 52- and 64-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	Back performance scale (BPS)	The BPS will be used as a performance based outcome of physical function. It includes five daily activities such as putting socks on or picking something on the floor (see PMID: 12444880 for more details). Each activity is rated from 0 to 3, and the five scores are added up (min = 0, max = 15; a higher score means a worse outcome).	baseline, 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	Five times sit-to-stand test	The five times sit-to-stand test will be used as performance based outcome of physical function. Participant sitting on a supported chair will be instructed to stand and sit again as fast as possible, five times in a row. Time will be measured in seconds. The test will be performed twice and the average time for the two trials will be recorded (a higher score means a worse outcome).	baseline, 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	Depression	Depression levels will be measured using the French-Canadian version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; min = 0, max = 63; a higher score means a worse outcome).	baseline, 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	Anxiety	Anxiety levels will be measured using the French-Canadian version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, version Y (STAI-Y; min = 20, max = 80; a higher score means a worse outcome).	baseline, 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	Pain catastrophizing	The main elements contributing to the pain experience according to the fear avoidance model of pain will be measured. Pain catastrophizing will be measured with the French-Canadian version of the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS; min = 0, max = 52; a higher score means a worse outcome).	baseline, 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	Kinesiophobia	The main elements contributing to the pain experience according to the fear avoidance model of pain will be measured. Pain-related fear will be measured with a French adaptation of the Tampa scale for kinesiophobia (TSK; min = 17, max = 68; a higher score means a worse outcome).	baseline, 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	Pain vigilance	The main elements contributing to the pain experience according to the fear avoidance model of pain will be measured. Hypervigilance will be measured with a French adaptation of the pain vigilance and awareness questionnaire (PVAQ; min = 0, max = 80; a higher score means a worse outcome).	baseline, 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	Patient's global impression of change	Participants will be instructed to give their global impression of change on a scale from -100 to 100 (-100 = very much worse, 0 = no change, 100 = very much improved).	After the last treatment session (12-weeks post-randomization)
Secondary	Expectations of pain relief	Participants will be instructed to rate their expectations of pain relief after the treatment on a scale from 0 to 100, 0 being "no relief" and 100 being "complete relief".	baseline and 4-weeks post-randomization.
Secondary	Contextual factors (healing encounters and attitudes lists (HEAL))	Contextual factors will be measured using a French adaptation of the healing encounters and attitudes lists (HEAL).	baseline, 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization.