Search

Objectives: The aims of this study were twofold: 1) to evaluate the differences in pain sensitivity of patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) and 2) to examine the association between pain expansion, pain severity, and pain-related central sensitization somatosensory variables in patients with GTPS., Study Design: A cross-sectional study., Setting: Primary health care centers., Subjects: The sample consisted of 49 participants with a mean age of 48.28 ± 8.13 years and included eight males (16.3%) and 41 females (83.7%)., Methods: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM), pain location, temporal summation, pressure pain detection threshold (PPDT), and pain intensity were recorded. Pain severity was determined with the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS)., Results: Several participants (34.7%) showed a negative conditioned pain modulation and a statistically significant negative moderate correlation (P < 0.05; r = -0.316) between conditioned pain modulation and right view percentage of pain location. Temporal summation at the major trochanter showed a statistically significant low negative correlation (P < 0.05; r = -0.298). The GCPS exhibited a statistically significant moderately positive correlation (P < 0.01; r = 0.467) with the PPDT at the trochanter and a significant correlation with the postero-superior iliac spine (P < 0.01; r = 0.515) and epicondyle (P < 0.01; r = 0.566)., Conclusions: Patients with GTPS presented altered CPM, a relationship with more pain areas associated with negative CPM, and a positive association between pain severity and mechanical hyperalgesia at remote sites. Thus, physicians could apply these outcome measurements to assess primary care patients with GTPS and determine the central sensitization presence to prescribe adequate multimodal treatment approaches., (© 2018 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Insufficient evidence exists to compare widespread pain (WP), pain sensibility, and psychological factors that occur in patients presenting with chronic neck pain (CNP) or a combination of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and other complaints. The present study compared the pain sensibility and psychological factors of subjects with CNP with those with TMD + CNP., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: Local community., Subjects: A nonprobabilistic convenience sample of 86 persons with CNP or TMD was recruited into three groups: CNP, TMD with myofascial pain in masticatory muscles with cocomitant CNP (TMD + CNP), and asymptomatic control groups consisted of 27, 29, and 30 participants, respectively., Methods: Participants underwent a clinical examination to evaluate WP with computerized assessment based on the pain drawing, pressure pain thresholds (PPT), and psychological factors, which were evaluated using the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) and the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI)., Results: Statistically significant differences were observed between participants with CNP and TMD + CNP for WP (t = -2.80, P  < 0.01, d = -1.06). Post hoc analyses only revealed significant differences between TMD + CNP participants and asymptomatic controls for PPT at extratrigeminal areas. Pearson correlation analyses showed a moderate positive association between symptomatic groups within the WP and STAI ( P  < 0.05) and a moderate negative association between PCS and PPT ( P  < 0.05) at the right tibialis muscle., Conclusion: TMD + CNP participants had more areas of pain and also showed widespread pain hyperalgesia. Both groups of participants had psychological factors positively associated with STAI and WP; further, PCS and the PPT at the extratrigeminal region were negatively associated with each other in both groups, except for the left tibialis in the TMD + CNP group., (© 2016 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Objective: Our aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness of graded activity (GA) or graded exposure (GEXP) for chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP)., Methods: A literature search of multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, CINAHL, and PsychINFO) was conducted to identify randomized control trials (RCTs). Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for relevant outcome measures (pain intensity, disability, quality of life, and catastrophizing)., Results: Thirteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Only nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. GA was significantly more effective than the control group (CG) for improvements in disability in the short term (three studies: n = 254, SMD = -0.3, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.05, P = 0.02) and long term (two studies: n = 238, SMD = -0.53, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.27, P < 0.0001). GA was significantly less effective than GEXP for the improvement of disability in the short term (two studies: n = 105, SMD = 0.39, 95% CI 0.003-0.78, P = 0.048). GA was also significantly less effective than GEXP at improving catastrophizing in the short term (two studies: n = 105, SMD = 0.48, 95% CI 0.09-0.87, P = 0.02)., Conclusion: Limited evidence has been found to show that GA significantly reduces disability in the short and long term when compared with the CG in CNSLBP. There is moderate evidence that GEXP more effectively decreases catastrophizing than GA in the short term. No difference was found between GA and other exercise for any variable., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. 2016. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Objective: Our aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness of therapeutic patient education for migraine., Methods: A literature search of multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, CINAHL, and PsychINFO) was conducted to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) published in the English and Spanish languages up to and including May 2013. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, conducted the quality assessment (Delphi list), and extracted the results. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method was used throughout the systematic review and meta-analysis. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for relevant outcome measures (headache frequency, headache disability, self-efficacy, depressive symptoms, and quality of life) and pooled in a meta-analysis using the random effects model., Results: Fourteen RCTs were included in the systematic review. Only nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. The median quality score was 6.14 ± 1.29 (range: 5-9). There was strong-moderate evidence for intermediate-term effectiveness of therapeutic patient education on headache frequency (five studies: N = 940, SMD = -0.24, 95% CI of -0.48 to -0.01, P = 0.03), headache disability (four studies: N = 799, SMD = -1.02, 95% CI of -1.95 to -0.08, P = 0.03), and quality of life (three studies: N = 674, SMD = 0.36, 95% CI of 0.05-0.67, P = 0.02). There was no evidence for either short-term or intermediate-term effectiveness of therapeutic patient education on self-efficacy or depressive symptoms., Conclusion: This systematic review revealed strong-moderate evidence for intermediate-term effectiveness of therapeutic patient education for migraine. Further high-quality RCTs are required for conclusive determination of its effectiveness., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)