Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Musculoskeletal disorders that follow a chronic course are associated with many symptoms, the most striking one is chronic pain that gradually worsens. The aim of this randomized controlled and single- center study was to investigate the effect of Reformer Pilates exercises on pain severity, pain coping methods, pain beliefs, fear of movement, fatigue and sleep quality in young adult patients with chronic low back pain and neck pain. Methods A total of 54 women aged between 30 and 50 were randomized into two groups. The Reformer Pilates (RP) group received a 6-week exercise program (45 min/twice per week), while the control group (CG) didn’t receive any exercise program. Outcomes measured before and after the interventions were, Brief Pain Questionnaire, Pain Coping Scale, Pain Beliefs Scale, Tampa Kinesiophobia Scale, FACIT Fatigue Scale and Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index. Results The groups were homogeneous at baseline. Statistical differences were found in favour of RP with small to large effect size in pain parameters ( p  < 0.05; Cohen’s d = 0.17–1.45), large effect size in fear of movement, small effect size in fatigue and medium effect size in sleep quality ( p  < 0.05; Cohen’s d = 0.43–0.86). No statistical difference between the groups was observed only in the pain beliefs organic sub-heading of the Pain Beliefs Scale and in the passive strategies sub-headings of the Pain Coping Scale ( p  > 0.05). Discussion The results of the current study suggest that Reformer Pilates increased active living in patients with chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain engenders a comprehensive enhancement in both physical and mental health, in addition to the capacity of patients to proactively manage their condition. Trial registration Registration number: NCT06706037. Date of registration: 11/25/2024.

Chronic low back pain (CLBP), the most prevalent chronic pain condition, imparts substantial disability and discomfort. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) reduces the effect of CLBP, but access is limited. To determine whether a single class in evidence-based pain management skills (empowered relief) is noninferior to 8-session CBT and superior to health education at 3 months after treatment for improving pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, pain interference, and other secondary outcomes. This 3-arm randomized clinical trial collected data from May 24, 2017, to March 3, 2020. Participants included individuals in the community with self-reported CLBP for 6 months or more and an average pain intensity of at least 4 (range, 0-10, with 10 indicating worst pain imaginable). Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches. Participants were randomized to (1) empowered relief, (2) health education (matched to empowered relief for duration and format), or (3) 8-session CBT. Self-reported data were collected at baseline, before treatment, and at posttreatment months 1, 2, and 3. Group differences in Pain Catastrophizing Scale scores and secondary outcomes at month 3 after treatment. Pain intensity and pain interference were priority secondary outcomes. A total of 263 participants were included in the analysis (131 women [49.8%], 130 men [49.4%], and 2 other [0.8%]; mean [SD] age, 47.9 [13.8] years) and were randomized into 3 groups: empowered relief (n = 87), CBT (n = 88), and health education (n = 88). Empowered relief was noninferior to CBT for pain catastrophizing scores at 3 months (difference from CBT, 1.39 [97.5% CI, -∞ to 4.24]). Empowered relief and CBT were superior to health education for pain catastrophizing scores (empowered relief difference from health education, -5.90 [95% CI, -8.78 to -3.01; P < .001]; CBT difference from health education, -7.29 [95% CI, -10.20 to -4.38; P < .001]). Pain catastrophizing score reductions for empowered relief and CBT at 3 months after treatment were clinically meaningful (empowered relief, -9.12 [95% CI, -11.6 to -6.67; P < .001]; CBT, -10.94 [95% CI, -13.6 to -8.32; P < .001]; health education, -4.60 [95% CI, -7.18 to -2.01; P = .001]). Between-group comparisons for pain catastrophizing at months 1 to 3 were adjusted for baseline pain catastrophizing scores and used intention-to-treat analysis. Empowered relief was noninferior to CBT for pain intensity and pain interference (priority secondary outcomes), sleep disturbance, pain bothersomeness, pain behavior, depression, and anxiety. Empowered relief was inferior to CBT for physical function. Among adults with CLBP, a single-session pain management class resulted in clinically significant improvements in pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, pain interference, and other secondary outcomes that were noninferior to 8-session CBT at 3 months. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167086.

Objective. Opioids are frequently prescribed for chronic low back pain (CLBP), but there are broad individual differences in the benefits and risks of opioid therapy, including the development opioid-induced hyperalgesia. This study examined quantitative sensory testing (QST) data among a group of CLBP patients undergoing sustained oral opioid treatment. We investigated whether individual differences in psychological characteristics were related to opioid-induced changes in pain perception and pain modulation. Design. The six-month, open-label trial evaluated patients with low to high levels of negative affect (e.g., symptoms of distress, depression and anxiety); participants underwent QST at baseline (prior to initiating treatment) and during oral opioid treatment. Setting. A chronic pain management center. Patients. The 31 study participants had chronic discogenic back pain, with a pain intensity rating >3/10. Participants were divided into groups with high vs. low levels of Negative Affect (NA). Results. In the previously-published manuscript describing the clinical outcomes of the trial, high NA patients achieved only about half of the analgesic effect observed in the low NA group (Wasan AD, Michna E, Edwards RR, et al. Psychiatric comorbidity is associated prospectively with diminished opioid analgesia and increased opioid misuse in patients with chronic low back pain. Anesthesiology 2015;123:861–72). The QST findings reported here suggested that tolerance to experimental (cold pressor) pain and conditioned pain modulation tended to decrease in the high NA group over the course of opioid treatment, while temporal summation of mechanical pain declined in the low NA group. Conclusions. These results reveal that while the low NA group seemed to exhibit a generally adaptive, analgesic pattern of changes during opioid management, the high NA group showed a pattern more consistent with opioid-induced hyperalgesic processes. A greater susceptibility to hyperalgesia-promoting changes in pain modulation among patients with high levels of distress may contribute to a lower degree of benefit from opioid treatment in high NA patients.

Low back pain stands as a prevalent contributor to pain-related disability on a global scale. In addressing chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is a growing emphasis on incorporating psychological strategies into the management process. Among these, pain education interventions strive to reshape pain beliefs and mitigate the perceived threat of pain. This randomized controlled trial sought to assess the effects of pain education on various aspects, including pain levels, disability, quality of life, self-efficacy, and prognostic characteristics in individuals grappling with CLBP. The clinical trial, retrospectively registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2021/08/035963), employed a two-arm parallel randomized design. Ninety-two participants with CLBP were randomly assigned to either the standard physiotherapy care with a pain education program or the control group. Both groups underwent a 6-week intervention. Assessment of pain intensity (using NPRS), disability (using RMDQ), self-efficacy (using the general self-efficacy scale), and well-being (using WHO 5I) occurred both before and after the 6-week study intervention. Post-intervention score comparisons between the groups revealed that the pain education intervention led to a significant reduction in disability compared to the usual standard care at 6 weeks (mean difference 8.2, p < 0.001, effect size Cohen d = 0.75), a decrease in pain intensity (mean difference 3.5, p < 0.001, effect size Cohen d = 0.82), and an improvement in the well-being index (mean difference 13.7, p < 0.001, effect size Cohen d = 0.58). The findings suggest that integrating a pain education program enhances the therapeutic benefits of standard physiotherapy care for individuals dealing with chronic LBP. In conclusion, the clinical benefits of pain education become apparent when delivered in conjunction with standard care physiotherapy during the management of chronic low back pain.

BackgroundOne-size-fits-all interventions reduce chronic low back pain (CLBP) a small amount. An individualised intervention called cognitive functional therapy (CFT) was superior for CLBP compared with manual therapy and exercise in one randomised controlled trial (RCT). However, systematic reviews show group interventions are as effective as one-to-one interventions for musculoskeletal pain. This RCT investigated whether a physiotherapist-delivered individualised intervention (CFT) was more effective than physiotherapist-delivered group-based exercise and education for individuals with CLBP.Methods206 adults with CLBP were randomised to either CFT (n=106) or group-based exercise and education (n=100). The length of the CFT intervention varied according to the clinical progression of participants (mean=5 treatments). The group intervention consisted of up to 6 classes (mean=4 classes) over 6–8 weeks. Primary outcomes were disability and pain intensity in the past week at 6 months and 12months postrandomisation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models.ResultsCFT reduced disability more than the group intervention at 6 months (mean difference, 8.65; 95% CI 3.66 to 13.64; p=0.001), and at 12 months (mean difference, 7.02; 95% CI 2.24 to 11.80; p=0.004). There were no between-group differences observed in pain intensity at 6 months (mean difference, 0.76; 95% CI -0.02 to 1.54; p=0.056) or 12 months (mean difference, 0.65; 95% CI -0.20 to 1.50; p=0.134).ConclusionCFT reduced disability, but not pain, at 6 and 12 months compared with the group-based exercise and education intervention. Future research should examine whether the greater reduction in disability achieved by CFT renders worthwhile differences for health systems and patients.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT02145728).