Objective: Systematic review of randomized control trials (RCTs) for the effectiveness of pain neuroscience education (PNE) on pain, function, disability, psychosocial factors, movement, and healthcare utilization in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. Data Sources: Systematic searches were conducted on 11 databases. Secondary searching (PEARLing) was undertaken, whereby reference lists of the selected articles were reviewed for additional references not identified in the primary search. Study Selection: All experimental RCTs evaluating the effect of PNE on chronic MSK pain were considered for inclusion. Additional Limitations: Studies published in English, published within the last 20 years, and patients older than 18 years. No limitations were set on specific outcome measures. Data Extraction: Data were extracted using the participants, interventions, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) approach. Data Synthesis: Study quality of the 13 RCTs used in this review was assessed by 2 reviewers using the PEDro scale. Narrative summary of results is provided for each study in relation to outcomes measurements and effectiveness. Conclusions: Current evidence supports the use of PNE for chronic MSK disorders in reducing pain and improving patient knowledge of pain, improving function and lowering disability, reducing psychosocial factors, enhancing movement, and minimizing healthcare utilization.

Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial on preoperative pain neuroscience education (NE) for lumbar radiculopathy. To determine if the addition of NE to usual preoperative education would result in superior outcomes with regard to pain, function, surgical experience, and health care utilization postsurgery. One in 4 patients after lumbar surgery (LS) for radiculopathy experience persistent pain and disability, which is nonresponsive to perioperative treatments. NE focusing on the neurophysiology of pain has been shown to decrease pain and disability in populations with chronic low back pain. Eligible patients scheduled for LS for radiculopathy were randomized to receive either preoperative usual care (UC) or a combination of UC plus 1 session of NE delivered by a physical therapist (verbal one-on-one format) and a NE booklet. Sixty-seven patients completed the following outcomes prior to LS (baseline), and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after LS: low back pain (numeric rating scale), leg pain (numeric rating scale), function (Oswestry Disability Index), various beliefs and experiences related to LS (10-item survey with Likert scale responses), and postoperative utilization of health care (utilization of health care questionnaire). At 1-year follow-up, there were no statistical differences between the experimental and control groups with regard to primary outcome measure of low back pain (P = 0.183), leg pain (P = 0.075), and function (P = 0.365). In a majority of the categories regarding surgical experience, the NE group scored significantly better: better prepared for LS (P = 0.001); preoperative session preparing them for LS (P < 0.001) and LS meeting their expectations (P = 0.021). Health care utilization post-LS also favored the NE group (P = 0.007) resulting in 45% less health care expenditure compared with the control group in the 1-year follow-up period. NE resulted in significant behavior change. Despite a similar pain and functional trajectory during the 1-year trial, patients with LS who received NE viewed their surgical experience more favorably and used less health care facility in the form of medical tests and treatments. 2.

Objective: Evaluate content and educational delivery methods of preoperative education in total joint arthroplasties of the hip and knee (THA and TKA) addressing postoperative pain. Data sources: Systematic searches conducted on Biomed Central, BMJ.com, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, NLM Central Gateway, OVID, ProQuest (Digital Dissertations), PsycInfo, PubMed/Medline, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science. Secondary searching (pearling) was undertaken. Data extraction: Data were extracted utilizing the participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes approach. Study selection: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of preoperative education on postoperative pain in THA and TKA surgery were considered for inclusion. Limitations: Studies published in English; published within the last 20 years and patients over the age of 18. No limitations were set on specific outcome measures of pain. Data synthesis: This review included 13 RCTs involving a total of 1,017 subjects who underwent THA or TKA. Educational delivery methods comprised verbal one-on-one or group education sessions, delivered within 4 weeks of surgery lasting an average of 30 minutes, and accompanied by other written materials. The educational content centered on descriptions of preoperative preparation, hospital stay, surgical procedure, immediate/intermediate experiences, expectations following surgery, rehabilitation, encouragement/reassurance, and answering common question associated with the surgical experience. Conclusions: Preoperative education centered on a biomedical model of anatomy and pathoanatomy as well as procedural information has limited effect in reducing postoperative pain after THA and TKA surgeries. Preoperative educational sessions that aim to increase patient knowledge of pain science may be more effective in managing postoperative pain.

In recent years, there has been an increased interest in pain neuroscience education (PNE) in physical therapy. There is growing evidence for the efficacy of PNE to decrease pain, disability, fear-avoidance, pain catastrophization, limited movement, and health care utilization in people struggling with pain. PNE teaches people in pain more about the biology and physiology of their pain experience including processes such as central sensitization, peripheral sensitization, allodynia, inhibition, facilitation, neuroplasticity and more. PNE's neurobiological model often finds itself at odds with traditional biomedical models used in physical therapy. Traditional biomedical models, focusing on anatomy, pathoanatomy, and biomechanics have been shown to have limited efficacy in helping people understand their pain, especially chronic pain, and may in fact even increase a person's pain experience by increasing fear-avoidance and pain catastrophization. An area of physical therapy where the biomedical model is used a lot is manual therapy. This contrast between PNE and manual therapy has seemingly polarized followers from each approach to see PNE as a 'hands-off' approach even having clinicians categorize patients as either in need of receiving PNE (with no hands-on), or hands-on with no PNE. In this paper, we explore the notion of PNE and manual therapy co-existing. PNE research has shown to have immediate effects of various clinical signs and symptoms associated with central sensitization. Using a model of sensitization (innocuous, noxious, and allodynia), we argue that PNE can be used in a manual therapy model, especially treating someone where the nervous system has become increasingly hypervigilant. Level of Evidence: VII.

Study Design: Prospective cohort/predictive validity study. Objective: To determine the predictive validity of selected clinical examination items and to develop a clinical prediction rule to determine which patients with neck pain may benefit from cervical thrust joint manipulation (TJM) and exercise. Background: TJM to the cervical spine has been shown to be effective in patients presenting with a primary report of neck pain. It would be useful for clinicians to have a decision-making tool, such as a clinical prediction rule, that could accurately identify which subgroup of patients would respond positively to cervical TJM. Methods: Consecutive patients who presented to physical therapy with a primary complaint of neck pain completed a series of self-report measures, then received a detailed standardized history and physical examination. After the clinical examination, all patients received a standardized treatment regimen consisting of cervical TJM and range-of-motion exercise. Depending on response to treatment, patients were treated for 1 or 2 sessions over approximately 1 week. At the end of their participation in the study, patients were classified as having experienced a successful outcome based on a score of +5 (“quite a bit better”) or higher on the global rating of change scale. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for all potential predictor variables. Univariate techniques and stepwise logistic regression were used to determine the most parsimonious set of variables for prediction of treatment success. Variables retained in the regression model were used to develop a multivariate clinical prediction rule. Results: Eighty-two patients were included in data analysis, of whom 32 (39%) achieved a successful outcome. A clinical prediction rule with 4 attributes (symptom duration less than 38 days, positive expectation that manipulation will help, side-to-side difference in cervical rotation range of motion of 10° or greater, and pain with posteroanterior spring testing of the middle cervical spine) was identified. If 3 or more of the 4 attributes (positive likelihood ratio of 13.5) were present, the probability of experiencing a successful outcome improved from 39% to 90%. Conclusion: The clinical prediction rule may improve decision making by providing the ability to a priori identify patients with neck pain who are likely to benefit from cervical TJM and range-of-motion exercise. However, this is only the first step in the process of developing and testing a clinical prediction rule, as future studies are necessary to validate the results and should include long-term follow-up and a comparison group. Level of Evidence: Prognosis, level 2b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42(7):577–592, Epub 14 May 2012. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.4243