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.

Abstract. Systematic reviews suggest that stand-alone hypnotic suggestions may improve pain outcomes compared with no treatment, waitlist, or usual care. However, in clinical practice, hypnosis is often provided adjunctively with other interventions, which might have different effects than those reported in previous reviews. This systematic review aimed to summarize the analgesic effects of adjunctive hypnosis in adults with clinical pain. Seven databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Emcare, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, Cochrane) were searched up to January 2024. Randomised controlled trials comparing the analgesic effects of adjunctive hypnosis (hypnosis + primary intervention) with those of the primary intervention alone were included. Meta-analyses (random-effects model) calculated mean differences (MD, [95% confidence intervals]) for pain intensity (0–100). Seventy studies were pooled in meta-analyses (n = 6078). Hypnosis adjunctive to usual care had a small additional analgesic effect (chronic pain: −8.2 [−11.8, −1.9]; medical procedures/surgical pain: −6.9 [−10.4, −3.3]; burn wound care: −8.8 [−13.8, −3.9]). Hypnosis adjunctive to education had a medium additional analgesic effect for chronic pain (−11.5 [−19.7, 3.3]) but not postsurgery pain (−2.0 [−7.8, 3.7]). When paired with psychological interventions, hypnosis slightly increased analgesia in chronic pain only at the three-month follow-up (−2 [−3.7, −0.3]). Hypnosis adjunctive to medicines had a medium additional analgesic effect for chronic pain (−13.2, [−22.5, −3.8]). The overall evidence certainty is very low; therefore, there is still uncertainty about the analgesic effects of adjunctive hypnosis. However, hypnosis adjunct to education may reduce pain intensity for chronic pain. Clarification of proposed therapeutic targets of adjunctive hypnosis to evaluate underlying mechanisms is warranted.

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 ).

Introduction Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability, resulting in pain and reduced quality of life. Exercise is the cornerstone of conservative management but effects are, at best, moderate. Early evidence suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied over the primary motor cortex (M1) may improve the effect of exercise in knee osteoarthritis. This pilot study aims to (1) determine the feasibility, safety and participant-rated response to an intervention adding M1 rTMS to exercise in knee osteoarthritis; (2) elucidate physiological mechanisms in response to the intervention; (3) provide data to conduct a sample size calculation for a fully powered trial.Methods and analysis This is a pilot randomised, assessor-blind, therapist-blind and participant-blind, sham-controlled trial. Thirty individuals with painful knee osteoarthritis will be recruited and randomly allocated to receive either: (1) active rTMS+exercise or (2) sham rTMS+exercise intervention. Participants will receive 15 min of either active or sham rTMS immediately prior to 30 min of supervised muscle strengthening exercise (2×/week, 6 weeks) and complete unsupervised home exercises. Outcome measures of feasibility, safety, pain, function and physiological mechanisms will be assessed before and/or after the intervention. Feasibility and safety will be analysed using descriptive analysis. Within-group and between-group comparisons of pain and function will be conducted to examine trends of efficacy.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC210954). All participants will provide written informed consent. The study results will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication.Trial registration number ACTRN12621001712897p.

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