Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Secular Trends in Esophageal Cancer Mortality in China and Japan during 1990–2019: An Age-Period-Cohort Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Bidirectional Comorbid Associations between Back Pain and Major Depression in US Adults
Previous Article in Journal
Altered Food Behavior and Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analyzing the Interaction between Clinical, Neurophysiological and Psychological Outcomes Underlying Chronic Plantar Heel Pain: A Network Analysis Study

by
Marta Ríos-León
1,
Juan Antonio Valera-Calero
2,3,*,
Ricardo Ortega-Santiago
4,5,
Umut Varol
3,
César Fernández-de-las-Peñas
4,5 and
Gustavo Plaza-Manzano
6,7
1
Hospital Nacional de Parapléjicos, SESCAM, 45004 Toledo, Spain
2
Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, Universidad Camilo José Cela, Villanueva de la Cañada, 28692 Madrid, Spain
3
VALTRADOFI Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, Universidad Camilo José Cela, Villanueva de la Cañada, 28692 Madrid, Spain
4
Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Alcorcón, Spain
5
Cátedra Institucional en Docencia, Clínica e Investigación en Fisioterapia: Terapia Manual, Punción Seca y Ejercicio Terapéutico, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Alcorcón, Spain
6
Department of Radiology, Rehabilitation and Physiotherapy, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
7
Grupo InPhysio, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), 28040 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(16), 10301; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610301
Submission received: 30 July 2022 / Revised: 17 August 2022 / Accepted: 18 August 2022 / Published: 18 August 2022

Abstract

:
Plantar heel pain (PHP) is one of the most common foot pain conditions in adults. Several biological and psychological factors could be involved in chronic PHP in a complex matrix. However, reciprocal interactions between these factors are unknown. The aim of the present study was to use network analysis to quantify potential multivariate relationships between pain-related, function, clinical, mechanosensitivity, psychological, and health-related variables in individuals with PHP. Demographic (age, gender), pain-related (pain intensity), function, clinical (myofascial trigger points [TrPs]), mechanosensitivity (pressure pain thresholds), psychological (Beck Depression Inventory), and health-related variables (EQ-5D-5L) were collected in 81 PHP patients. Network connectivity analysis was conducted to quantify the adjusted correlations between the modeled variables and to assess their centrality indices. The connectivity network showed local associations between pain-related variables, foot function, and mechanosensitivity. Additionally, associations between quality of life, depression, and pain-related variables were found, while TrPs was associated with quality of life and mechanosensitivity. The node with the highest strength centrality was the worst pain intensity, while mechanosensitivity and worst pain intensity showed the highest closeness and betweenness centrality. This is the first study to apply network modeling to understand the connections between pain-related, function, clinical, mechanosensitivity, psychological, and health-related variables in PHP. The role of pain severity and mechanosensitivity is highlighted and supported by the network. Thus, this study reveals potential factors that could be the target in the management of PHP, promoting a comprehensive and effective therapeutic approach.

1. Introduction

Plantar heel pain (PHP) is one of the most common causes of foot pain in adults [1]. It is characterized by throbbing medial plantar heel pain, especially during the first step in the morning or after a prolonged period of inactivity [2,3]. Its prevalence ranges from 4% to 9.6% [4] and it is estimated that it occurs in approximately two million Americans each year [5,6,7], resulting in over one million physician visits annually in the United States of America (USA) [5,6]. In addition, up to 20% of PHP patients continue with symptoms longer than one year [8], leading to a significant negative impact on foot-specific and general health-related quality of life due to functional limitations in a broad range of activities and physical tasks [9]. Therefore, this condition can be highly disabling in almost 8% of the population [4], and the associated annual economic burden accounts for USD 284 million [10]. Despite the impact and prevalence of PHP, its etiology remains controversial making it difficult to determine effective treatments and preventive programs [11].
Previous studies have identified several factors involved in a complex matrix behind the potential etiopathogenesis of PHP [8,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Among these factors, foot-level findings (e.g., limited ankle joint dorsiflexion) [8], presence of active trigger points (TrPs) [12], reduced muscle strength and endurance [8], and psychological factors [16,17] could be involved in PHP in a complex matrix. In addition, emerging evidence also supports the presence of altered central nociceptive pain processing in people with PHP [13,14] related to pressure pain hyperalgesia [13,15]. Supporting these associations, some previous studies have reported different interactions between clinical, psychological, and neurophysiological variables in people with PHP [12,13,15,18]. However, these studies used Spearman’s rank-order correlation, Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlations, or linear regressions to determine the associations between the outcomes [12,13,15,18]. It should be noted that Spearman’s rank-order correlation or Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation ignore the potential for pairwise associations to arise from third-variable effects, whereas linear regressions ignore the possibility of bidirectional relationships between the variables [19].
Network analysis techniques allow a better understanding of complex relationships addressing the mentioned limitations (despite the first step being based on partial correlations) [20]. Network analysis can provide a method to identify the most important variables in the associated complex network. Thus, this analysis could be used to potentially design better therapeutic strategies for improving the management of PHP [21]. From a network perspective, PHP can be viewed as a complex condition sustained by mutual interactions between clinical, physiological, and psychological systems. Previous studies have used network analysis for a better understanding related to the complexity of chronic pain syndromes [22,23].
However, no study has applied network analysis in PHP research. As the current PHP framework considers the reciprocal interactions between biological and psychological factors, this analysis could add precision to research on PHP and develop more targeted management procedures. Therefore, the aims of this study were: (1) to apply a network connectivity analysis including pain-related, function, clinical, mechanosensitivity, psychological, and health-related variables in individuals with PHP; and (2) to illustrate the potential of a network analysis for understanding underlying features of PHP and improving options for developing more targeted and effective treatment strategies. Based on the available literature [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,22,23,24,25], we hypothesized that pain intensity, foot function, number of trigger points, mechanosensitivity, depression, and quality of life will show multiple associations in individuals with PHP.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

An observational cross-sectional study following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [26] was conducted. The study design was approved by the Local Ethics Committee (URJC 051220160022020). All participants signed an informed consent before their inclusion in the study.

2.2. Participants

Individuals with a primary report of plantar heel pain attending a physical therapy clinic in Madrid (Spain) between January 2020 and April 2022 were screened for eligibility criteria. Inclusion criteria were: (1) adults aged 18 years or older; (2) clinical diagnosis of plantar heel pain according to the clinical practice guidelines from the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (i.e., insidious onset of sharp pain on the plantar heel surface on weight bearing after a period of non–weight bearing, pain increasing in the morning with the first step after waking up, and tenderness with palpation of the proximal insertion of the plantar fascia) [7]; and (3) unilateral plantar heel pain for more than 3 months.
Exclusion criteria were: (1) previous surgery within the lower extremity; (2) presence of positive neurologic signs related to nerve root compression; (3) other medical condition associated with heel pain (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, peripheral neuropathy); or (4) treatment for the heel received within the previous 6 weeks.

2.3. Patients’ Assessment

2.3.1. Pain Intensity

An 11-point numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain), was used to determine the pain intensity [27]. Participants rated their pain intensity at first step in the morning, the mean pain intensity during the day after periods of rest, and the worst level of pain experienced the preceding week on the NPRS.

2.3.2. Function

Foot function was assessed with the Foot Function Index (FFI) [28], a valid and reliable questionnaire for several foot disorders such as plantar heel pain [29]. The FFI consists of 23 self-reported items divided into 3 subcategories: pain (9-items), disability (9-items), and activity limitation (5-items). Each item is scored on a scale from 0 (no pain or difficulty) to 10 (worst pain or so difficult it requires help).
Subscale scores range from 0% to 100%, with higher scores indicating lower levels of function and worse foot health-related quality of life [29]. The FFI total score (i.e., mean of the 3 subscale scores) was used in the analysis.

2.3.3. Clinical Presentation

Since the finding of myofascial trigger points (TrPs) was related to symptoms experienced by people with plantar heel pain [30], the total number of TrPs detected in the examination of each subject was also recorded. The presence of TrPs was explored in the internal gastrocnemius, flexor hallucis brevis, adductor hallucis, and quadratus plantae muscles according to international diagnostic criteria (i.e., presence of a sensitive spot into a taut band of a skeletal muscle that elicits referred pain in response to manual compression) [31].
A TrP was considered active if the elicited referred pain reproduced symptoms of the patient, whereas a TrP was considered latent if the elicited referred pain did not reproduce any symptoms considered familiar to the patient [31]. The order of evaluation was randomized between subjects, with a two-minute rest period between muscles.

2.3.4. Mechanosensitivity

Pressure pain threshold (PPT), defined as the minimal amount of pressure where a sensation of pressure changes to pain [32], was used to evaluate local and widespread pressure pain sensitivity. PPTs were bilaterally assessed with an electronic algometer (FPIXTM, Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA) over different musculoskeletal structures and nerve trunks including the main symptomatic area (calcaneus bone: origin of the plantar fascia), one adjacent area (calcaneus bone: midpoint of calcaneal tuberosity), one segmental-related area (tibialis anterior muscle) and one peripheral nerve (sural nerve).
Pressure was applied at a rate of approximately 1 kg/cm2/s on each point [33]. The mean of 3 trials on each point, with a resting period of 30 s for avoiding temporal pain summation [34], was calculated and used for the main analysis. The reliability of PPT assessment over these structures has been found to range from moderate to high [35,36].

2.3.5. Psychological Health

Affective, cognitive, and somatic symptoms of depression were assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), a 21-item self-report questionnaire [37]. This questionnaire ranked level of depression according to the following ranges of cut-off scores: 0–13 (minimal), 14–19 (mild), 20–28 (moderate), and 29–63 (severe) [37].

2.3.6. Quality of Life

Health-related quality of life was assessed with the paper-based five-level version of EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) [38,39]. This questionnaire evaluates mobility, self-care, daily activities independency, perceived pain, and anxiety/depression impact domains. Responses range from 1 (absence of problems) to 3 (severe problems). All responses were converted into a single index number, which corresponds to the health state ranging from 0 (health state equivalent to death) to 1 (optimal health) according to standardized values [40].

2.4. Network Analysis

All statistical analyses were run in R software v.4.1.1 (RStudio, Boston, MA, USA) for Windows 10. In order to conduct all analyses required, the following three libraries were installed and used: qgraph v.1.6.9 (for network estimation), glasso v.1.11 (for network estimation), and bootnet v.1.4.3 (for stability analyses).
This network was built based on the following 13 variables set as nodes: age, gender, pain intensity after rest, pain intensity during the first step, worst pain intensity, FFI, depression, Euro-Qol-5D, PPTs at tibialis anterior, PPT at sural nerve, PPT at plantar fascia, PPT at calcaneus bone and number of TrPs (latent and active). All nodes were included as continuous except gender (included as categorical). Therefore, since five to ten data points per node are needed for an acceptable sample size according to Hair et al. [41], a minimum of 65 participants would be required.
Edges in the network were represented by lines linking the nodes if associated. Stronger associations were expressed with thicker lines while weaker associations are visualized as thinner lines. Directions of the partial correlations are visualized as red lines for negative correlations and green for positive correlations. In connections involving categorical nodes where sign is not defined, lines were grey [19].
The network structure was determined based on the importance of each node based on centrality indices (i.e., strength, closeness and betweenness) [22]:
-
Strength centrality is a blunt measure that takes node’s total level of involvement in the network and not the number of connections with other nodes, being clinically useful to determine which outcomes should be targeted for inducing direct changes in other variables.
-
Closeness, which is defined as the inverse sum of the distances of shortest paths of the target node from all other nodes in the network, was interpreted as the expected speed of arrival of something flowing through the network. Therefore, targeting outcomes with high closeness could induce changes to other nodes more quickly than the nodes that are peripheral.
-
Betweenness centrality was interpreted as the percentage of shortest paths that must go through the target node. Therefore, a node with a high betweenness centrality would act as an intermediary in the transmission of information or resources between other nodes or even clusters of nodes in the network.
Finally, edge weights and variability of centrality indices were assessed running a bootstrapping with 95% confidence interval (CI) and 1000 iterations. The edge weights bootstrapped CIs were interpreted as accuracy of the estimated weights since only the edges with non-zero weights were preserved. For assessing the variability of the centrality indices (CS-coefficient as a measure of correlation stability), participant-dropping subset bootstrap was utilized. This method reflects the maximum proportion of data that could be dropped to retain >0.7 of the correlation with the original centrality indices [42].

3. Results

A sample of 81 participants was screened for participation and analyzed. We had no data loss in this study. Descriptive data of the sample is described in Table 1.
The network obtained from this sample is displayed in Figure 1. The strongest associations were found between PPTs locations (i.e., sural nerve with tibialis anterior ρ : 0.51 and calcaneus bone with plantar fascia ρ : 0.50). Regarding the pain-related variables, multiple associations were found. For instance, worst pain intensity was associated with the pain suffered after the first step ( ρ : 0.46), foot function ( ρ : 0.45), age ( ρ : −0.41), and PPT at the tibialis anterior location ( ρ : −0.23). Several nodes were linked with foot function, such as PPT at the sural nerve and tibialis anterior locations ( ρ : −0.25 and 0.21 respectively), depression ( ρ : 0.25), and age ( ρ : 0.36). On the other hand, quality of life was associated with pain intensity after the first step ( ρ : −0.19) and depression ( ρ : 0.30). Finally, the number of TrPs was associated with quality of life ( ρ : 0.34) and PPT at the sural nerve location ( ρ : 0.16).
Centrality indices are shown in Figure 2. The worst pain intensity (node 5) was the node with higher strength centrality, followed by PPT at tibialis anterior (node 9) and foot function (node 10). Regarding the closeness centrality, PPT at tibialis anterior (node 9) and sural nerve locations (node 10), depression (node 7) and worst pain intensity (node 5) were the highlighted nodes. Finally, PPT at the tibialis anterior (node 9), worst pain intensity (node 5), and gender (node 2) were the nodes showing the greatest betweenness centrality.
The betweenness and closeness measures of the network were unstable at CScor=0.7 = 0.00 and CScor=0.7 = 0.00, respectively. However, the strength centrality measure was found to be relatively stable with CScor=0.7 = 0.05 (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

Current understanding supports the presence of several linked biopsychosocial factors underlying features of PHP. This study applied network connectivity analysis to understand the multivariate interaction between pain-related, function, clinical, mechanosensitivity, psychological, and health-related variables in individuals with PHP. Consistent with modern theories on PHP features, the identified network supports a complex model where pain-related, function, clinical, mechanosensitivity, psychological, and health-related variables interact.
The main findings revealed that mechanosensitivity (PPTs), foot function, and age were factors related to pain severity (i.e., worst pain intensity) in individuals with chronic PHP. In addition, mechanosensitivity (PPTs) was also associated with foot function. The presence of pressure pain hypersensitivity and its association with higher pain intensity and limited foot function in individuals with chronic PHP has been reported in previous studies [13,18]. In fact, previous studies reported that 20.8% of pain intensity could be explained by foot function (contribution 2.8%) and calcaneus bone PPTs (contribution 18%) in PHP [18]. According to those results, the current study has shown that the edges with the strongest weight were PPTs (i.e., calcaneus bone with plantar fascia, and sural nerve with tibialis anterior muscle), revealing the importance of pressure pain hyperalgesia in segmental-related areas and symptomatic areas for understanding and management of PHP. These findings support the role of peripheral nociception in the plantar area and the presence of central sensitization related to long-lasting and sustained peripheral noxious input into the central nervous system in individuals with PHP [13,15,18]. Nevertheless, age has also been associated with pain severity in chronic PHP: younger ages were associated with higher pain severity possibly due to pain perception. Previous studies found that chronic pain was more bothersome and distressing to younger adults than to the older age group [43,44]; however, no significant associations between age and pain severity for PHP were previously reported probably due to small sample size [18].
Quality of life was identified as another factor related to pain intensity and psychological health (i.e., level of depression), while foot function was also associated with age and psychological health. Similar to previous studies [33,45,46,47], a negative correlation between the quality of life and chronic PHP intensity was found. The deterioration in the quality of life, except in terms of mental health, previously reported [33], supported associations between psychological health and quality of life found in the network study. In addition, the fact that individuals with PHP may have perceived it as a mild injury without an important impact on specific aspects of mental health [33] could also explain these findings. Nevertheless, previous studies also found associations between foot function and depression in PHP [18,45], reporting that depression severity contributed 6% to the variance in function in PHP [18]. Thus, depression should be considered in preventive and treatment programs for PHP. However, it should be considered that depressive levels found in the present study, similar to those previously reported [18,45], were relatively small, explaining associations between psychological health and other variables reflected. Regarding age and foot function, positive correlations were found, as also previously reported [18]: older age was a demographic feature associated with foot function in PHP. In fact, it was revealed that age could contribute 8% to the variance in function in PHP [18], suggesting that rehabilitation programs should consider age in the proposal of treatment strategies to improve the management of PHP.
The data also showed that the number of TrPs was associated with quality of life and mechanosensitivity. Although this is the first study showing associations between the number of TrPs and mechanosensitivity (PPTs) in PHP, the relationship between both variables was previously reported in different musculoskeletal pain conditions, such as shoulder impingement [48] and lateral epicondylalgia [49]. Previous studies showed that a greater number of active TrPs was associated with pain intensity and related disability in PHP [12], suggesting an important role of TrPs in PHP. In fact, a greater number of muscle TrPs could presume the presence of spatial pain summation related to peripheral and central sensitization, as previously reported in other conditions [48], since TrPs could be considered as prolonged and relevant peripheral nociceptive inputs triggering sensitization mechanisms related to widespread pain and spatial pain summation [50,51]. Thus, improvements in PPTs related to TrPs treatment for PHP previously found [52,53,54] could confirm the role of TrPs in peripheral and central sensitization in PHP, supporting associations between TrPs and PPTs shown in this study. Additionally, previous results also showed improvements in the quality of life related to TrPs treatment [55,56], supporting the association between these variables and suggesting that this approach may be effective for the management of PHP.
The network identified that worst pain intensity showed the highest strength centrality followed by PPT at tibialis anterior and foot function, while PPT at tibialis anterior and sural nerve closely followed by worst pain intensity and depression showed the highest closeness centrality. Similar findings were found in betweenness centrality, where worst pain intensity and PPT at tibialis anterior were highlighted nodes. In this scenario, pain severity and mechanosensitivity seem to play a key role in PHP, so if clinicians want to influence other variables, e.g., those related to foot function also associated with psychological health, the best variables to focus treatment on would be pain severity and mechanosensitivity. In addition, mechanosensitivity could induce the fastest changes in other variables, e.g., those related to pain severity, foot function, and depression. In line with these findings, previous studies revealed that PPT was a significant predictor of pain severity or foot function in PHP, and depression was considered a predictor of foot function [18], suggesting the importance of a comprehensive therapeutic approach targeted on these variables in PHP. Thus, the management of PHP focused on these outcomes could improve current treatment strategies and promote an effective and comprehensive therapeutic approach in PHP.

Limitations

Although this is the first study using network analysis in PHP, and despite the positive aspects of its use, some limitations should be recognized. First, the fact that this was a cross-sectional study precludes the ability to disentangle between–subjects from within–subjects relationships. However, network analysis could provide indicative potential causal pathways [19]. Second, although we included multiple aspects, such as pain-related, function, clinical, mechanosensitivity, psychological, and health-related variables, other variables (e.g., catastrophism), which could give a broader perspective of the biopsychosocial model approach in PHP, were not included. Third, we have only tested sensitivity to pressure pain, a static outcome of nociceptive gain. Thus, it would be interesting to investigate other dynamic outcomes related to sensitization, e.g., conditioning pain modulation or nociceptive flexor reflex, to determine different associations. Finally, we included the minimum participants per node for acceptable analyses. Larger sample sizes would result in more stable and accurate networks [57].

5. Conclusions

The application of network connectivity analysis in a sample of patients with PHP revealed a model where pain-related, function, clinical, mechanosensitivity, psychological, and health-related variables were internally associated with weak strength. The network showed that pain severity and mechanosensitivity were the nodes with the highest centrality measures, supporting a relevant role of pain and sensitization mechanisms in the model. These findings support that management of individuals with PHP should include comprehensive therapeutic approaches targeting all the aspects identified in the model.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, all authors; methodology, all authors; software, U.V. and J.A.V.-C.; validation, all authors; formal analysis, all authors; investigation, all authors; resources, all authors; data curation, U.V. and J.A.V.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.V.-C. and M.R.-L.; writing-review and editing, all authors; visualization, all authors; supervision, G.P.-M.; project administration, R.O.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Clinical Ethics Committee of Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (URJC 051220160022020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All data derived from this study are presented in the text.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Orchard, J. Plantar fasciitis. BMJ 2012, 345, e6603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kwon, J.; Park, J.; Borg-Stein, J.; Tenforde, A.S. A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews on the Epidemiology, Evaluation, and Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis. Life 2021, 11, 1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gutteck, N.; Schilde, S.; Delank, K.S. Pain on the plantar surface of the foot. Dtsch. Ärzteblatt Int. 2019, 116, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Thomas, M.J.; Whittle, R.; Menz, H.B.; Rathod-Mistry, T.; Marshall, M.; Roddy, E. Plantar heel pain in middle-aged and older adults: Population prevalence, associations with health status and lifestyle factors, and frequency of healthcare use. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2019, 20, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Schwartz, E.N.; Su, J. Plantar fasciitis: A concise review. Perm. J. 2014, 18, e105–e107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Riddle, D.L.; Schappert, S.M. Volume of ambulatory care visits and patterns of care for patients diagnosed with plantar fasciitis: A national study of medical doctors. Foot Ankle Int. 2004, 25, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Martin, R.L.; Davenport, T.E.; Reischl, S.F.; McPoil, T.G.; Matheson, J.W.; Wukich, D.K.; McDonough, C.M.; Altman, R.D.; Beattie, P.; Cornwall, M.; et al. Heel pain-plantar fasciitis: Revision 2014. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2014, 44, A1–A33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sullivan, J.; Pappas, E.; Burns, J. Role of mechanical factors in the clinical presentation of plantar heel pain: Implications for management. Foot 2020, 42, 101636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Irving, D.B.; Cook, J.L.; Young, M.A.; Menz, H.B. Impact of chronic plantar heel pain on health-related quality of life. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 2008, 98, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tong, K.B.; Furia, J. Economic burden of plantar fasciitis treatment in the United States. Am. J. Orthop. 2010, 39, 227–231. [Google Scholar]
  11. Beeson, P. Plantar fasciopathy: Revisiting the risk factors. Foot Ankle Surg. 2014, 20, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ortega-Santiago, R.; Ríos-León, M.; Martín-Casas, P.; Fernández-de-las-Peñas, C.; Plaza-Manzano, G. Active muscle trigger points are associated with pain and related disability in patients with plantar heel pain: A case-control study. Pain Med. 2020, 21, 1032–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Plaza-Manzano, G.; Ríos-León, M.; Martín-Casas, P.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C.; Ortega-Santiago, R. Widespread pressure pain hypersensitivity in musculoskeletal and nerve trunk areas as a sign of altered nociceptive processing in unilateral plantar heel pain. J. Pain. 2019, 20, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Jayaseelan, D.J.; Fernandez-de-Las-Penas, C.; Blattenberger, T.; Bonneau, D. Altered central pain processing in patients with chronic plantar heel pain: A critically appraised topic. J. Sport Rehabil. 2021, 30, 812–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ríos-León, M.; Ortega-Santiago, R.; Madeleine, P.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C.; Plaza-Manzano, G. Topographical Pressure Pain Sensitivity Maps of the Feet Reveal Bilateral Pain Sensitivity in Patients With Unilateral Plantar Heel Pain. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2019, 49, 640–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cotchett, M.P.; Whittaker, G.; Erbas, B. Psychological variables associated with foot function and foot pain in patients with plantar heel pain. Clin. Rheumatol. 2015, 34, 957–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Harutaichun, P.; Pensri, P.; Boonyong, S. Physical and psychological predictors on pain intensity in conscripts with plantar fasciitis. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2020, 24, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Alburquerque-Sendín, F.; Ríos-León, M.; Valera-Calero, J.A.; Plaza-Manzano, G.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C.; Ortega-Santiago, R.; Priscila Rodrigues-de-Souza, D. Clinical, Psychological and Neuro-Physiological Outcomes associated with Pain and Function in Individuals with Unilateral Plantar Heel Pain. Pain Med. 2022, pnac018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Epskamp, S.; Fried, E.I. A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks. Psychol. Methods 2018, 23, 617–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schmittmann, V.D.; Cramer, A.O.J.; Waldorp, L.J.; Epskamp, S.; Kievit, R.A.; Borsboom, D. Deconstructing the construct: A network perspective on psychological phenomena. New Ideas Psychol. 2013, 31, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Valente, T.W. Network interventions. Science 2012, 337, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C.; Varol, U.; Gómez-Mayordomo, V.; Cuadrado, M.L.; Valera-Calero, J.A. The relevance of headache as an onset symptom in COVID-19: A network analysis of data from the LONG-COVID-EXP-CM multicentre study. Acta Neurol. Belg. 2022, 122, 1093–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C.; Palacios-Ceña, M.; Valera-Calero, J.A.; Cuadrado, M.L.; Guerrero-Peral, A.; Pareja, J.A.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Varol, U. Understanding the interaction between clinical, emotional and psychophysical outcomes underlying tension-type headache: A network analysis approach. J. Neurol. 2022, 269, 4525–4534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Varol, U.; Úbeda-D’Ocasar, E.; Cigarán-Méndez, M.; Arias-Buría, J.L.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C.; Gallego-Sendarrubias, G.M.; Valera-Calero, J.A. Understanding the Psychophysiological and Sensitization Mechanisms behind Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Network Analysis Approach. Pain Med. 2022, pnac121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Valera-Calero, J.A.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Cigarán-Méndez, M.; Fernández-de-las-Peñas, C.; Varol, U. Network Analysis for Better Understanding the Complex Psycho-Biological Mechanisms behind Fibromyalgia Syndrome. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. Strobe Initiative The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007, 370, 1453–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jensen, M.P.; Turner, J.A.; Romano, J.M.; Fisher, L.D. Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures. Pain. 1999, 83, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Budiman-Mak, E.; Conrad, K.J.; Roach, K.E. The Foot Function Index: A measure of foot pain and disability. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1991, 44, 561–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Agel, J.; Beskin, J.L.; Brage, M.; Guyton, G.P.; Kadel, N.J.; Saltzman, C.L.; Sands, A.K.; Sangeorzan, B.J.; SooHoo, N.F.; Stroud, C.C.; et al. Reliability of the Foot Function Index: A report of the AOFAS Outcomes Committee. Foot Ankle Int. 2005, 26, 962–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Thummar, R.C.; Rajaseker, S.; Anumasa, R. Association between trigger points in hamstring, posterior leg, foot muscles and plantar fasciopathy: A cross- sectional study. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2020, 24, 373–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fernández-de-las-Peñas, C.; Dommerholt, D. International consensus on diagnostic criteria and clinical considerations of myofascial trigger points: A Delphi study. Pain Med. 2018, 19, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Vanderweeën, L.; Oostendorp, R.A.; Vaes, P.; Duquet, W. Pressure algometry in manual therapy. Man. Ther. 1996, 1, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Fernández-Lao, C.; Galiano-Castillo, N.; Cantarero-Villanueva, I.; Martín-Martín, L.; Prados-Olleta, N.; Arroyo-Morales, M. Analysis of Pressure Pain Hypersensitivity, Ultrasound Image, and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Plantar Pain: A Preliminary Study. Pain Med. 2016, 17, 1530–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Nie, H.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Andersen, H.; Graven-Nielsen, T. Temporal summation of pain evoked by mechanical stimulation in deep and superficial tissue. J. Pain. 2005, 6, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Xiong, S.; Goonetilleke, R.; Jiang, Z. Pressure thresholds of the human foot: Measurement reliability and effects of stimulus characteristics. Ergonomics 2011, 54, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fingleton, C.P.; Dempsey, L.; Smart, K.; Doody, C.M. Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliability of manual palpation and pressure algometry of the lower limb nerves in asymptomatic subjects. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2014, 37, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, Y.P.; Gorenstein, C. Assessment of depression in medical patients: A systematic review of the utility of the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Clinics 2013, 68, 1274–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Herdman, M.; Gudex, C.; Lloyd, A.; Janssen, M.F.; Kind, P.; Parkin, D.; Bonsel, G.; Badia, X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 2011, 20, 1727–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Keeley, T.; Al-Janabi, H.; Lorgelly, P.; Coast, J. A qualitative assessment of the content validity of the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L and their appropriateness for use in health research. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e85287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Van Hout, B.; Janssen, M.F.; Feng, Y.S.; Kohlmann, T.; Busschbach, J.; Golicki, D.; Lloyd, A.; Scalone, L.; Kind, P.; Pickard, A.S. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012, 15, 708–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  42. Friedman, J.; Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R. Glasso: Graphical Lasso Estimation of Gaussian Graphical Models. R Package Version 1.11. 2019. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/glasso/index.html (accessed on 26 July 2022).
  43. Cook, A.J.; Chastain, D.C. The classification of patients with chronic pain: Age and sex differences. Pain Res. Manag. 2001, 6, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Rustøen, T.; Wahl, A.K.; Hanestad, B.R.; Lerdal, A.; Paul, S.; Miaskowski, C. Age and the experience of chronic pain: Differences in health and quality of life among younger, middle-aged, and older adults. Clin. J. Pain. 2005, 21, 513–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Da Costa, B.R.; Vieira, E.R. Risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review of recent longitudinal studies. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2010, 53, 285–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Cotchett, M.; Lennecke, A.; Medica, V.G.; Whittaker, G.A.; Bonanno, D.R. The association between pain catastrophising and kinesiophobia with pain and function in people with plantar heel pain. Foot 2017, 32, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cotchett, M.; Frescos, N.; Whittaker, G.A.; Bonanno, D.R. Psychological factors associated with foot and ankle pain: A mixed methods systematic review. J. Foot Ankle Res. 2022, 15, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hidalgo-Lozano, A.; Fernández-de-las-Peñas, C.; Alonso-Blanco, C.; Ge, H.Y.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Arroyo-Morales, M. Muscle trigger points and pressure pain hyperalgesia in the shoulder muscles in patients with unilateral shoulder impingement: A blinded, controlled study. Exp. Brain Res. 2010, 202, 915–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fernández-Carnero, J.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C.; de la Llave-Rincón, A.I.; Ge, H.Y.; Arendt-Nielsen, L. Prevalence of and referred pain from myofascial trigger points in the forearm muscles in patients with lateral epicondylalgia. Clin. J. Pain. 2007, 23, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, C.; Ge, H.Y.; Ibarra, J.M.; Yue, S.W.; Madeleine, P.; Arendt-Nielsen, L. Spatial pain propagation over time following painful glutamate activation of latent myofascial trigger points in humans. J. Pain. 2012, 13, 537–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ge, H.Y.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C.; Yue, S.W. Myofascial trigger points: Spontaneous electrical activity and its consequences for pain induction and propagation. Chin. Med. 2011, 6, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ajimsha, M.S.; Binsu, D.; Chithra, S. Effectiveness of myofascial release in the management of plantar heel pain: A randomized controlled trial. Foot 2014, 24, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Melero-Suárez, R.; Sánchez-Santos, J.A.; Domínguez-Maldonado, G. Evaluation of the Analgesic Effect of Combination Therapy on Chronic Plantar Pain Through the Myofascial Trigger Points Approach. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 2018, 108, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Renan-Ordine, R.; Alburquerque-Sendín, F.; de Souza, D.P.; Cleland, J.A.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C. Effectiveness of myofascial trigger point manual therapy combined with a self-stretching protocol for the management of plantar heel pain: A randomized controlled trial. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2011, 41, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Al-Boloushi, Z.; Gómez-Trullén, E.M.; Arian, M.; Fernández, D.; Herrero, P.; Bellosta-López, P. Comparing two dry needling interventions for plantar heel pain: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e038033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Ye, L.; Mei, Q.; Li, M.; Gu, M.; Ai, Z.; Tang, K.; Shi, D.; Wu, X.; Wang, X.; Zheng, Y. A comparative efficacy evaluation of ultrasound-guided pulsed radiofrequency treatment in the gastrocnemius in managing plantar heel pain: A randomized and controlled trial. Pain Med. 2015, 16, 782–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hevey, D. Network analysis: A brief overview and tutorial. Health Psychol. Behav. Med. 2018, 6, 301–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Network analysis of the association between demographic, pain-related, function, psychological, quality of life, and clinical presentation in patients with unilateral chronic heel pain. Edges represent connections between two nodes and are interpreted as the existence of an association between two nodes, adjusted for all other nodes. Each edge in the network represents either positive regularized adjusted associations (green edges) or negative regularized adjusted associations (red edges). The thickness and color saturation of an edge denotes its weight (the strength of the association between two nodes). Abbreviatures: FFI, Foot Function Index; PPT, Pain Pressure Threshold.
Figure 1. Network analysis of the association between demographic, pain-related, function, psychological, quality of life, and clinical presentation in patients with unilateral chronic heel pain. Edges represent connections between two nodes and are interpreted as the existence of an association between two nodes, adjusted for all other nodes. Each edge in the network represents either positive regularized adjusted associations (green edges) or negative regularized adjusted associations (red edges). The thickness and color saturation of an edge denotes its weight (the strength of the association between two nodes). Abbreviatures: FFI, Foot Function Index; PPT, Pain Pressure Threshold.
Ijerph 19 10301 g001
Figure 2. Centrality measures of Strength, Closeness, and Betweenness of each node in the network. Centrality value of 1 indicates maximal importance, and 0 indicates no importance. The nodes’ numbers are consistent with Figure 1.
Figure 2. Centrality measures of Strength, Closeness, and Betweenness of each node in the network. Centrality value of 1 indicates maximal importance, and 0 indicates no importance. The nodes’ numbers are consistent with Figure 1.
Ijerph 19 10301 g002
Figure 3. Average correlations between centrality indices of networks sampled with persons dropped and networks built on the entire input dataset. Lines indicate the means and areas indicate the range from the 2.5th quantile to the 97.5th quantile.
Figure 3. Average correlations between centrality indices of networks sampled with persons dropped and networks built on the entire input dataset. Lines indicate the means and areas indicate the range from the 2.5th quantile to the 97.5th quantile.
Ijerph 19 10301 g003
Table 1. Participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics values.
Table 1. Participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics values.
VariableSampleData Distribution
Age (years)Mean (SD): 42.2 (13.2) Median (IQR): 43 (20) Ijerph 19 10301 i001
Gender (male/females)Males: 41 (50.6%) Females: 40 (49.4%) Ijerph 19 10301 i002
Pain Intensity after rest (0–10)Mean (SD): 5.6 (1.9) Median (IQR): 6 (3) Ijerph 19 10301 i003
Pain Intensity after the first step (0–10)Mean (SD): 6.2 (2.1) Median (IQR): 7 (3) Ijerph 19 10301 i004
Worst Pain Intensity (0–10)Mean (SD): 7.4 (1.9) Median (IQR): 8 (2) Ijerph 19 10301 i005
Foot Function Index (0–100)Mean (SD): 40.7 (18.1) Median (IQR): 40.1 (22.5) Ijerph 19 10301 i006
Beck Depression Inventory (0–63)Mean (SD): 9.8 (9.4) Median (IQR): 6 (12) Ijerph 19 10301 i007
EuroQol-5D-5L (0–1)Mean (SD): 0.7 (0.2) Median (IQR): 0.7 (0.1) Ijerph 19 10301 i008
PPT Tibialis Anterior (kg/cm2)Mean (SD): 3.1 (1.5) Median (IQR): 2.6 (1.9) Ijerph 19 10301 i009
PPT Sural Nerve (kg/cm2)Mean (SD): 2.0 (1.3) Median (IQR): 1.6 (0.9) Ijerph 19 10301 i010
PPT Plantar Fascia (kg/cm2)Mean (SD): 2.9 (1.1) Median (IQR): 2.8 (1.1) Ijerph 19 10301 i011
PPT Calcaneus Bone (kg/cm2)Mean (SD): 4.0 (1.7) Median (IQR): 3.9 (1.9) Ijerph 19 10301 i012
Trigger Points (n)Mean (SD): 2.7 (2.8) Median (IQR): 2 (3) Ijerph 19 10301 i013
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ríos-León, M.; Valera-Calero, J.A.; Ortega-Santiago, R.; Varol, U.; Fernández-de-las-Peñas, C.; Plaza-Manzano, G. Analyzing the Interaction between Clinical, Neurophysiological and Psychological Outcomes Underlying Chronic Plantar Heel Pain: A Network Analysis Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10301. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610301

AMA Style

Ríos-León M, Valera-Calero JA, Ortega-Santiago R, Varol U, Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Plaza-Manzano G. Analyzing the Interaction between Clinical, Neurophysiological and Psychological Outcomes Underlying Chronic Plantar Heel Pain: A Network Analysis Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(16):10301. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610301

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ríos-León, Marta, Juan Antonio Valera-Calero, Ricardo Ortega-Santiago, Umut Varol, César Fernández-de-las-Peñas, and Gustavo Plaza-Manzano. 2022. "Analyzing the Interaction between Clinical, Neurophysiological and Psychological Outcomes Underlying Chronic Plantar Heel Pain: A Network Analysis Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 16: 10301. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610301

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop