To assess the effect of different dosages of pain neuroscience education (PNE) programs on central nociceptive processing in patients with fibromyalgia. Second, to compare the effects of different dosages of PNE programs on numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), disability, and psychological variables. Single-blind randomized controlled trial. Three fibromyalgia centers in Spain (Valencia, Alcorcón, Alcalá de Henares). Seventy-seven patients with fibromyalgia. Participants were randomized to four groups of PNE: 1) high-dose PNE (N = 20), 2) low–concentrated dose PNE (N = 20), 3) diluted low-dose PNE (N = 20), and (4) control treatment (N = 17), conducted in two 30–50-minute sessions in groups of four to six participants. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM), temporal summation (TS), and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were assessed at baseline and at three-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale. There were significant between-group differences for NPRS in favor of the groups receiving high-dose PNE, with a large effect size at three-month follow-up (P < 0.01, η²p = 0.170), but there were no significant differences between groups for the remaining variables (P > 0.05). All groups improved for central nociceptive processing, psychological variables, disability, and pain intensity (NPRS). In patients with fibromyalgia, higher dosages of PNE produced a larger improvement in pain severity at three-month follow-up than other dosages of PNE and biomedical education. However, PNE was not superior to biomedical education in the central nociceptive processing, disability, or psychological variables in patients with fibromyalgia.

Objectives: Compare the immediate effects of a Neurodynamic Mobilization (NM) treatment or foam roller (FR) treatment after DOMS. Design: Double blind randomised clinical trial. Setting: The participants performed 100 drop jumps (5 sets of 20 repetitions, separated by 2 min rests) from a 0.5-m high box in a University biomechanics laboratory to induce muscle soreness. The participants were randomly assigned in a counter-balanced fashion to either a FR or NM treatment group. Participants: Thirty-two healthy subjects (21 males and 11 females, mean age 22.6 ± 2.2 years) were randomly assigned into the NM group (n = 16) or the FR group (n = 16). Main Outcome Measures: The numeric pain rating scale (NPRS; 0–10), isometric leg strength with dynamometry, surface electromyography at maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and muscle peak activation (MPA) upon landing after a test jump were measured at baseline, 48 h after baseline before treatment, and immediately after treatment. Results: Both groups showed significant reduction in NPRS scores after treatment (NM: 59%, p < .01; FR: 45%, p < .01), but no difference was found between them (p > .05). The percentage change improvement in the MVIC for the rectus femoris was the only significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05) at post-treatment. After treatment, only the FR group had a statistically significant improvement (p < 0.01) in strength compared to pre-treatment. Conclusion: Our results illustrate that both treatments are effective in reducing pain perception after DOMS whereas only FR application showed differences for the MVIC in the rectus femoris and strength.

The aims of this study were twofold: 1) to evaluate the differences in pain sensitivity of patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) and 2) to examine the association between pain expansion, pain severity, and pain-related central sensitization somatosensory variables in patients with GTPS. A cross-sectional study. Primary health care centers. The sample consisted of 49 participants with a mean age of 48.28 ± 8.13 years and included eight males (16.3%) and 41 females (83.7%). Conditioned pain modulation (CPM), pain location, temporal summation, pressure pain detection threshold (PPDT), and pain intensity were recorded. Pain severity was determined with the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS). Several participants (34.7%) showed a negative conditioned pain modulation and a statistically significant negative moderate correlation (P < 0.05; r = -0.316) between conditioned pain modulation and right view percentage of pain location. Temporal summation at the major trochanter showed a statistically significant low negative correlation (P < 0.05; r = -0.298). The GCPS exhibited a statistically significant moderately positive correlation (P < 0.01; r = 0.467) with the PPDT at the trochanter and a significant correlation with the postero-superior iliac spine (P < 0.01; r = 0.515) and epicondyle (P < 0.01; r = 0.566). Patients with GTPS presented altered CPM, a relationship with more pain areas associated with negative CPM, and a positive association between pain severity and mechanical hyperalgesia at remote sites. Thus, physicians could apply these outcome measurements to assess primary care patients with GTPS and determine the central sensitization presence to prescribe adequate multimodal treatment approaches.

Subjects with greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) show an altered physical function while performing static and dynamic tasks. Pain and psychosocial factors are also variables that influence the outcomes of these patients. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between dynamic balance, pain-related measures, and psychosocial measures in subjects with chronic GTPS. Descriptive cross-sectional study. Primary health care center. Fifty-one subjects with greater trochanteric pain syndrome were recruited. Dynamic balance was evaluated using the Y-Balance Test (YBT), and a self-reported test battery was used to assess the following aspects: pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS]), kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia [TSK-11]), pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), and self-efficacy (Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale [CPSS]). Correlation analysis showed that YBT was negatively associated with the VAS average, the helplessness subscale of the PCS, and the pain and function subscales and total score of the WOMAC. YBT was positively associated with the pain subscale of the CPSS. The scores of the YBT forward movement were predicted by the VAS average (38.1% of variance) in addition to the WOMAC total score (34.2% of variance) and TSK-11 total score (43.8% of variance). The findings of this study suggest that kinesiophobia, pain, and physical function are related to dynamic balance in subjects with GTPS. Thus, when diagnosing and planning the treatment of patients with GTPS, psychosocial and physical function factors should be taken into account, in addition to pain management.