Many studies have been performed to identify important prognostic factors for outcomes after rehabilitation of patients with chronic pain, and there is a need to synthesize them through systematic review. In this process, it is important to assess the study quality and risk of bias. The “Quality In Prognosis Studies” (QUIPS) tool has been developed for this purpose and consists of several prompting items categorized into six domains, and each domain is judged on a three-grade scale (low, moderate or high risk of bias). The aim of the present study was to determine the interrater agreement of the risk of bias assessment in prognostic studies of patients with chronic pain using QUIPS and to elaborate on the use of this instrument. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of prognostic factors for long-term outcomes after multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic pain. Two researchers rated the risk of bias in 43 published papers in two rounds (15 and 28 papers, respectively). The interrater agreement and Cohen’s quadratic weighted kappa coefficient (κ) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated in all domains and separately for the first and second rounds. The raters agreed in 61% of the domains (157 out of 258), with similar interrater agreement in the first (59%, 53/90) and second rounds (62%, 104/168). The overall weighted kappa coefficient (kappa for all domains and all papers) was weak: κ = 0.475 (95%CI = 0.358–0.601). A “minimal agreement” between the raters was found in the first round, κ = 0.323 (95%CI = 0.129–0.517), but increased to “weak agreement” in the second round, κ = 0.536 (95%CI = 0.390–0.682). Despite a relatively low interrater agreement, QUIPS proved to be a useful tool in assessing the risk of bias when performing a meta-analysis of prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation, since it demands of raters to discuss and investigate important aspects of study quality. Some items were particularly hard to differentiate in-between, and a learning phase was required to increase the interrater agreement. This paper highlights several aspects of the tool that should be kept in mind when rating the risk of bias in prognostic studies, and provides some suggestions on common pitfalls to avoid during this process. PROSPERO CRD42016025339 ; registered 05 February 2016.

Objectives: This systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate prognostic factors for long-term (≥6 mo) physical functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain following multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MDR). Materials and Methods: Electronic searches conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL revealed 25 original research reports, published 1983-2016, (n=9436). Potential prognostic factors relating to initial pain and physical and psychological functioning were synthesized qualitatively and quantitatively in random effects meta-analyses. The level of evidence (LoE) was evaluated with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Pain-related factors (intensity and chronicity) were not associated with function/disability at long-term follow-up, odds ratio (OR)=0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65-1.07 and OR=0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00, respectively (moderate LoE). A better function at follow-up was predicted by Physical factors; higher levels of initial self-reported functioning, OR=1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13 (low LoE), and Psychological factors; low initial levels of emotional distress, OR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92, low levels of cognitive and behavioral risk factors, OR=0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93 and high levels of protective cognitive and behavioral factors, OR=1.49; 95% CI, 1.17-1.90 (moderate LoE). Discussion: While pain intensity and long-term chronicity did not predict physical functioning in chronic pain patients after MDR, poor pretreatment physical and psychological functioning influenced the prognosis negatively. Thus, treatment should further target and optimize these modifiable factors and an increased focus on positive, psychological protective factors may perhaps provide an opening for yet untapped clinical gains.

Background: In chronic LBP (CLBP), guideline-endorsed treatment is to stay active, return to normal activity, and to exercise. Several reviews on various exercise types used in CLBP have been published. We aimed to identify systematic reviews of common exercise types used in CLBP, to appraise their quality, and to summarize and compare their effect on pain and disability.Methods: We searched the databases OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE LIBRARY, and WEB OF SCIENCE (Core collection) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on adults between 18 and 70 years of age suffering from chronic or recurrent LBP for a period of at least 12 weeks, which investigated the effects of exercises on pain and disability. All searches were conducted without language restriction. The search was performed up until 2022–01-26. The included reviews were grouped into nine exercise types: aerobic training, aquatic exercises, motor control exercises (MCE), resistance training, Pilates, sling exercises, traditional Chinese exercises (TCE), walking, and yoga. The study quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2. For each exercise type, a narrative analysis was performed, and the level of evidence for the effects of exercise was assessed through GRADE.Results: Our database search resulted in 3,475 systematic reviews. Out of the 253 full texts that were screened, we included 45 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The quality of the included reviews ranged from high to critically low. Due to large heterogeneity, no meta-analyses were performed. We found low-to-moderate evidence of mainly short-term and small beneficial effects on pain and disability for MCE, Pilates, resistance training, TCE, and yoga compared to no or minimal intervention.Conclusions: Our findings show that the effect of various exercise types used in CLBP on pain and disability varies with no major difference between exercise types. Many of the included systematic reviews were of low-to-moderate quality and based on randomized controlled trials with high risk of bias. The conflicting results seen, undermine the certainty of the results leading to very-low-to-moderate quality of evidence for our results. Future systematic reviews should be of higher quality to minimize waste of resources.Trial registration: PROSPERO: Reg no 190409 Registration date 01AUG 2020.

Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability globally. Interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation (IMPR) targets pain with a bio-psycho-social approach, often delivered as composite programs. However, evidence of optimal program duration for the rehabilitation to succeed remains scarce. This study evaluated the effectiveness of different duration IMPR-programs—using within- and between-effects analyses in a pragmatic multicenter register-based controlled design. Using the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation, data from fifteen clinics specialized in chronic pain rehabilitation across Sweden were retrieved. Participants were patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain who had taken part in short (4–9 weeks; n = 924), moderate (10 weeks; n = 1379), or long (11–18 weeks; n = 395) IMPR programs. Longitudinal patient-reported outcome data were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and at a 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were health-related quality of life, presented as perceived physical and mental health (SF-36). Secondary outcomes included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), pain intensity (NRS 0-10), the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), and perceived health (EQ-5D). Overall, all groups showed improvements. No clinically important effect emerged for different duration IMPR. In conclusion, while our results showed that patients following IMPR report improvement across a bio-psycho-social specter, a longer program duration was no more effective than a shorter one.

Objective: To investigate prognostic factors for physical and emotional functioning following interd...

Background: Developmental life stage at chronic pain onset differs among chronic pain patients. Although pain affects multiple life domains, it is unknown whether the timing of chronic pain onset relates to pain characteristics and psychosocial outcomes. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate differences in pain characteristics and psychosocial outcomes in patients at different developmental life stages at chronic pain onset. Methods: Cross-sectional baseline data from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (2009 to 2016) were used, selecting the middle-aged patients (45-65 years, n=6225) reporting chronic nonmalignant pain. Patients were categorized into three groups, depending on their developmental life stage at chronic pain onset: early onset (age <= 30 years), intermediate onset (age 31-45 years), and late onset (age >= 46 years). Pain characteristics and psychosocial outcomes were assessed with validated self-reported measures. Results: One-way MANCOVA indicated differences in number of pain locations and psychosocial outcomes among the groups. Post hoc analysis showed differences in the trends for how groups differed on outcome domains. Overall, patients with earlier chronic pain onset showed significantly poorer psychosocial outcomes and more spreading of pain. Conclusion: Developmental life stage at chronic pain onset is associated with different pain outcomes. Pain onset early in life is linked to worse outcomes in multiple domains, pointing to a need for identifying these patients early.