Erratum European Journal of Pain 2013;17:279–289

Authors

  • Jo Nijs,

    1. Pain in Motion Research Group, Departments of Human Physiology and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
    2. Department of Physical Medicine and Physiotherapy, University Hospital Brussels, Belgium
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Margot De Kooning,

    1. Pain in Motion Research Group, Departments of Human Physiology and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
    2. Department of Physical Medicine and Physiotherapy, University Hospital Brussels, Belgium
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Yannick Tobbackx,

    1. Pain in Motion Research Group, Departments of Human Physiology and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
    2. De Zuil, Centre for Chronic Pain Treatment and Relaxation Therapy, Westerlo, Belgium
    3. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mira Meeus

    1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
    Search for more papers by this author

Errata

This article corrects:

  1. Does acupuncture activate endogenous analgesia in chronic whiplash-associated disorders? A randomized crossover trial Volume 17, Issue 2, 279–289, Article first published online: 11 September 2012

In the paper reporting the findings of our randomized crossover trial comparing acupuncture with relaxation therapy for patients with chronic whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) (Tobbackx et al., 2013), the F-values and p-values reported in Table 4 (p. 286) are incorrect and are correctly listed later. For generating the correct numbers as presented here, we have used a slightly different way of analysing the dataset. Two-factor repeated-measures analyses of variance with a within-subjects factor of treatment (acupuncture vs. relaxation), a within-subjects factor of time (pre- vs. post-treatment) and a time × group interaction were used to identify a treatment effect on the dependent variables. This did not change the primary study findings. The study data still show that one session of acupuncture treatment results in acute improvements in pressure pain sensitivity in the neck of patients with chronic WAD, that acupuncture had no effect on conditioned pain modulation or temporal summation of pressure pain, and that both acupuncture and relaxation appear to be well-tolerated treatments for people with chronic WAD. However, one session of acupuncture treatment did not alter pressure pain sensitivity at a site distinct from the painful region (i.e., the calf).

Table 1. Outcome of the repeated-measures analysis of variance displaying the effects of acupuncture (n = 38) versus relaxation (n = 39) on local pressure pain sensitivity, conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation (TS) of pressure pain (intention-to-treat analysis)
VariablePre-acupuncture (mean ± SD)Post-acupuncture (mean ± SD)Pre-relaxation (mean ± SD)Post-relaxation (mean ± SD)Time × group interaction effects (F-value; p-value)
  1. TS data are based on the standard deviations (SDs) of the measurements to reflect variability; using the mean values or the raw data did not change the outcome of the analysis (data not shown).
Pain sensitivity trapezius3.92 ± 1.723.16 ± 1.604.13 ± 1.744.10 ± 1.888.818; 0.005
Pain sensitivity trapezius CPM3.84 ± 1.762.84 ± 1.323.95 ± 1.823.77 ± 1.609.675; 0.004
Pain sensitivity calf3.74 ± 1.983.53 ± 1.863.59 ± 2.113.46 ± 1.760.083; 0.775
Pain sensitivity calf CPM3.55 ± 2.023.32 ± 1.993.67 ± 2.083.64 ± 1.770.486; 0.490
CPM on TS trapezius0.37 ± 1.300.47 ± 1.060.72 ± 1.430.59 ± 1.230.530; 0.471
CPM on TS calf0.50 ± 1.370.18 ± 1.290.23 ± 1.81−0.03 ± 1.310.015; 0.904
TS trapezius pre-CPM1.3 ± 0.7550.93 ± 0.7181.2 ± 0.7001.1 ± 0.5682.440; 0.127
TS trapezius during CPM1.1 ± 0.7370.85 ± 0.7930.99 ± 0.7290.86 ± 0.7720.771; 0.385
TS calf pre-CPM1.0 ± 0.9250.86 ± 0.6780.97 ± 0.7240.81 ± 0.6860.000; 0.993
TS calf during CPM0.82 ± 0.7750.76 ± 0.7240.81 ± 0.7390.78 ± 0.7350.041; 0.841

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Ancillary