Search

Abstract. Introduction:. The effect of pain education (PE) on pain intensity and function diminishes after a few months in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). One possible explanation is the return of underlying fears and worries related to the condition. Objective:. To explore topics related to participants' beliefs and feelings that might explain why fears and worries persist after a PE-grounded intervention for CLBP. Methods:. We conducted a qualitative study involving semistructured interviews with participants from the active arm of a randomised controlled trial who received an individualised PE-grounded intervention for adults with CLBP. We used reflexive thematic analysis with an inductive approach. Results:. Twenty participants were interviewed (9 women and 11 men, median age = 54 years, median pain duration = 4 years, 13 reporting at least 30% pain reduction on the trial primary outcome). Three themes were identified: 1) “Are you implying my pain is not real?”: a few participants believed the validity of their pain was being questioned. 2) “You don't understand, my pain is different”: most participants considered the influence of an altered nervous system but did not exclude the possibility of having structural and biomechanical influences for the persistence of their back pain. 3) “I am unsure how to fit it into my daily life”: fear and worries persisted when participants could not figure out how to apply an alternative way of making sense of pain in their daily lives. Conclusion:. Patients' perceptions about PE should be monitored and might be addressed with communication strategies, educational content that matches patients' characteristics, and reinforcements over time.

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to select a set of measures to comprehensively predict and assess outcomes following moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) across Australia. The aim of this article was to report on the implementation and findings of an evidence-based consensus approach to develop AUS-TBI recommendations for outcome measures following adult and pediatric moderate-to-severe TBI. Following consultation with a panel of expert clinicians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives and a Living Experience group, and preliminary literature searches with a broader focus, a decision was made to focus on measures of mortality, everyday functional outcomes, and quality of life. Standardized searches of bibliographic databases were conducted through March 2022. Characteristics of 75 outcome measures were extracted from 1485 primary studies. Consensus meetings among the AUS-TBI Steering Committee, an expert panel of clinicians and researchers and a group of individuals with lived experience of TBI resulted in the production of a final list of 11 core outcome measures: the Functional Independence Measure (FIM); Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E); Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) (adult); mortality; EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ5D); Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI); Return to Work /Study (adult and pediatric); Functional Independence Measure for Children (WEEFIM); Glasgow Outcome Scale Modified for Children (GOS-E PEDS); Paediatric Quality of Life Scale (PEDS-QL); and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (pediatric). These 11 outcome measures will be included as common data elements in the AUS-TBI data dictionary. Review Registration PROSPERO (CRD42022290954).

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to develop a health informatics approach to collect data predictive of outcomes for persons with moderate-severe TBI across Australia. Central to this approach is a data dictionary; however, no systematic reviews of methods to define and develop data dictionaries exist to-date. This rapid systematic review aimed to identify and characterize methods for designing data dictionaries to collect outcomes or variables in persons with neurological conditions. Database searches were conducted from inception through October 2021. Records were screened in two stages against set criteria to identify methods to define data dictionaries for neurological conditions (International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision: 08, 22, and 23). Standardized data were extracted. Processes were checked at each stage by independent review of a random 25% of records. Consensus was reached through discussion where necessary. Thirty-nine initiatives were identified across 29 neurological conditions. No single established or recommended method for defining a data dictionary was identified. Nine initiatives conducted systematic reviews to collate information before implementing a consensus process. Thirty-seven initiatives consulted with end-users. Methods of consultation were ?roundtable? discussion (n?=?30); with facilitation (n?=?16); that was iterative (n?=?27); and frequently conducted in-person (n?=?27). Researcher stakeholders were involved in all initiatives and clinicians in 25. Importantly, only six initiatives involved persons with lived experience of TBI and four involved carers. Methods for defining data dictionaries were variable and reporting is sparse. Our findings are instructive for AUS-TBI and can be used to further development of methods for defining data dictionaries.

In modern times there is increasing acceptance that music-based interventions are useful aids in the clinical treatment of a range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including helping to reduce the perception of pain. Indeed, the belief that music, whether listening or performing, can alter human pain experiences has a long history, dating back to the ancient Greeks, and its potential healing properties have long been appreciated by indigenous cultures around the world. The subjective experience of acute or chronic pain is complex, influenced by many intersecting physiological and psychological factors, and it is therefore to be expected that the impact of music therapy on the pain experience may vary from one situation to another, and from one person to another. Where pain persists and becomes chronic, aberrant central processing is a key feature associated with the ongoing pain experience. Nonetheless, beneficial effects of exposure to music on pain relief have been reported across a wide range of acute and chronic conditions, and it has been shown to be effective in neonates, children and adults. In this comprehensive review we examine the various neurochemical, physiological and psychological factors that underpin the impact of music on the pain experience, factors that potentially operate at many levels – the periphery, spinal cord, brainstem, limbic system and multiple areas of cerebral cortex. We discuss the extent to which these factors, individually or in combination, influence how music affects both the quality and intensity of pain, noting that there remains controversy about the respective roles that diverse central and peripheral processes play in this experience. Better understanding of the mechanisms that underlie music’s impact on pain perception together with insights into central processing of pain should aid in developing more effective synergistic approaches when music therapy is combined with clinical treatments. The ubiquitous nature of music also facilitates application from the therapeutic environment into daily life, for ongoing individual and social benefit.

Abstract Background Antidepressant medicines are used to manage symptoms of low back pain. The efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for low back pain (LBP) are not clear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for LBP. Methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform from inception to May 2020. We included published and trial registry reports of RCTs that allocated adult participants with LBP to receive an antidepressant medicine or a placebo medicine. Pairs of authors independently extracted data in duplicate. We extracted participant characteristics, study sample size, outcome values, and measures of variance for each outcome. We data using random-effects meta-analysis models and calculated estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We formed judgments of confidence in the evidence in accordance with GRADE. We report our findings in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We prespecified all outcomes in a prospectively registered protocol. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and acceptability. We measured pain intensity at end-of-treatment on a 0–100 point scale and considered 10 points the minimal clinically important difference. We defined acceptability as the odds of stopping treatment for any reason. Results We included 23 RCTs in this review. Data were available for pain in 17 trials and acceptability in 14 trials. Treatment with antidepressants decreased pain intensity by 4.33 points (95% CI − 6.15 to − 2.50) on a 0–100 scale, compared to placebo. Treatment with antidepressants increased the odds of stopping treatment for any reason (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.56]), compared to placebo. Conclusions Treatment of LBP with antidepressants is associated with small reductions in pain intensity and increased odds of stopping treatment for any reason, compared to placebo. The effect on pain is not clinically important. The effect on acceptability warrants consideration. These findings provide Level I evidence to guide clinicians in their use of antidepressants to treat LBP. Trial registration We prospectively registered the protocol for this systematic review on PROSPERO ( CRD42020149275 ).

Abstract Background There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain. Methods We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology. Discussion This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019145257

BackgroundChronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem associated with an increasing burden on individuals, health care systems, and society. Common treatments for people with CLBP produce, on average, small short-term improvements in pain and function compared with minimal care. The RESOLVE trial randomly allocated 276 people with CLBP to a new complex treatment strategy, pain education integrated with graded sensorimotor precision training (RESOLVE), or a sham control. The RESOLVE treatment was developed within a theoretical framework to target possible treatment mechanisms associated with CLBP development and persistence. ObjectiveThis protocol describes the planned evaluation of these proposed treatment mechanisms. Improved understanding of the mechanisms underpinning the RESOLVE treatment may guide its refinement and implementation. MethodsWe will use causal mediation analysis to evaluate the proposed treatment mechanisms, including pain self-efficacy, back beliefs, pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, back perception, tactile acuity, and movement coordination. The primary outcomes are pain intensity and function at 18 weeks following allocation. Data were collected blind to allocation and hypotheses at baseline (mediators, outcomes, confounders), end of treatment (mediators), and at 18 weeks following allocation (outcomes). We will test the robustness of our findings by conducting planned sensitivity analyses. ResultsEthical approval was granted by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC15357). A total of 276 participants have been recruited from primary care practices and the community in Sydney, Australia. ConclusionsThe RESOLVE treatment constitutes a new paradigm for CLBP management with potentially wide-reaching implications. This mechanistic evaluation will provide evidence for the hypothesized treatment mechanisms and help explain why the treatment strategy did or did not have an effect on patient-reported outcomes. These results will help guide the treatment refinement and implementation. Trial RegistrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000610538; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368619&isReview=true International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/26053