The Reliability of Body Pain Diagrams in the Quantitative Measurement of Pain Distribution and Location in Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 450-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Southerst ◽  
Pierre Côté ◽  
Maja Stupar ◽  
Paula Stern ◽  
Silvano Mior
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Quantitative Measurement ◽  
Body Pain ◽  
Pain Distribution

scholarly journals What is the content of virtually delivered pain management programmes for people with persistent musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. 204946372110230
Author(s):  
Gregory Booth ◽  
Deborah Williams ◽  
Hasina Patel ◽  
Anthony W Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Core Element ◽  
Multidisciplinary Pain Management ◽  
Pain Services

Introduction: Virtual consultations (VC) have been embraced by healthcare organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic. VC allows continuation of patient care while adhering to government advised restrictions and social distancing measures. Multidisciplinary pain management programmes (PMPs) are a core element of many pain services and utilising virtual methods to deliver PMPs has allowed them to continue to provide care. This systematic review aimed to explore the content of existing virtually delivered PMPs and discuss if and how these findings can be used to guide clinical delivery. Methods: Eligible studies included adults (aged ⩾18 years) with persistent musculoskeletal pain and any virtually delivered intervention that was described as a PMP or that had components of PMPs. Databases were searched from inception until July 2020. We performed a content analysis comparing existing interventions with established evidence-based clinical guidelines published by the British Pain Society (BPS). Intervention reporting quality was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist: an established checklist developed to improve the completeness of the reporting of interventions. Results: Eight studies were included. One intervention included six of the seven components recommended by the BPS; none included all seven. ‘Skills training and activity management’ was present in all eight interventions; ‘education’ and ‘cognitive therapy methods’ were present in six interventions; ‘graded activation’ and ‘methods to enhance acceptance, mindfulness and psychological flexibility’ were present in four interventions; ‘physical exercise’ was present in two interventions and ‘graded exposure’ was present in one intervention. None of the studies described all 12 items of the TIDieR checklist adequately enough for replication. Conclusion: Published virtual PMPs partially meet established clinical guidelines. Future virtual PMPs should be based on evidence-based clinical guidelines, and more research is needed to explore the effectiveness of virtually delivered PMPs and each recommended component.

Acute experimentally-induced pain replicates the distribution but not the quality or behaviour of clinical appendicular musculoskeletal pain. A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendon Ford ◽  
Mark Halaki ◽  
Joanna Diong ◽  
Karen A Ginn
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Experimental Pain ◽  
Common Mechanism ◽  
Mcgill Pain Questionnaire ◽  
Pain Response ◽  
Provocation Testing ◽  
Experimentally Induced

AbstractObjectivesExperimental pain is a commonly used method to draw conclusions about the motor response to clinical musculoskeletal pain. A systematic review was performed to determine if current models of acute experimental pain validly replicate the clinical experience of appendicular musculoskeletal pain with respect to the distribution and quality of pain and the pain response to provocation testing.MethodsA structured search of Medline, Scopus and Embase databases was conducted from database inception to August 2020 using the following key terms: “experimental muscle pain” OR “experimental pain” OR “pain induced” OR “induced pain” OR “muscle hyperalgesia“ OR (“Pain model” AND “muscle”). Studies in English were included if investigators induced experimental musculoskeletal pain into a limb (including the sacroiliac joint) in humans, and if they measured and reported the distribution of pain, quality of pain or response to a provocation manoeuvre performed passively or actively. Studies were excluded if they involved prolonged or delayed experimental pain, if temporomandibular, orofacial, lumbar, thoracic or cervical spine pain were investigated, if a full text of the study was not available or if they were systematic reviews. Two investigators independently screened each title and abstract and each full text paper to determine inclusion in the review. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with a third investigator.ResultsData from 57 experimental pain studies were included in this review. Forty-six of these studies reported pain distribution, 41 reported pain quality and six detailed the pain response to provocation testing. Hypertonic saline injection was the most common mechanism used to induce pain with 43 studies employing this method. The next most common methods were capsaicin injection (5 studies) and electrical stimulation, injection of acidic solution and ischaemia with three studies each. The distribution of experimental pain was similar to the area of pain reported in clinical appendicular musculoskeletal conditions. The quality of appendicular musculoskeletal pain was not replicated with the affective component of the McGill Pain Questionnaire consistently lower than that typically reported by musculoskeletal pain patients. The response to provocation testing was rarely investigated following experimental pain induction. Based on the limited available data, the increase in pain experienced in clinical populations during provocative maneuvers was not consistently replicated.ConclusionsCurrent acute experimental pain models replicate the distribution but not the quality of chronic clinical appendicular musculoskeletal pain. Limited evidence also indicates that experimentally induced acute pain does not consistently increase with tests known to provoke pain in patients with appendicular musculoskeletal pain. The results of this review question the validity of conclusions drawn from acute experimental pain studies regarding changes in muscle behaviour in response to pain in the clinical setting.

A systematic review of the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain, back and low back pain in people with spinal cord injury

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (9) ◽  
pp. 705-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Michailidou ◽  
Louise Marston ◽  
Lorraine H. De Souza ◽  
Ian Sutherland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Injury ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Cord Injury

scholarly journals Sensory discrimination training for adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Andrew Graham ◽  
Cormac G. Ryan ◽  
Alasdair MacSween ◽  
Jenny Alexanders ◽  
Nick Livadas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Discrimination Training ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Sensory Discrimination

scholarly journals Effects of aerobic exercise in the treatment of older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a protocol of a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Naiane Teixeira Bastos de Oliveira ◽  
Irlei dos Santos ◽  
Gisela Cristiane Miyamoto ◽  
Cristina Maria Nunes Cabral
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Aerobic Exercise ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
And Function

Abstract Background Chronic musculoskeletal pain affects the quality of life of older adults by interfering in their ability to perform activities of daily living. Aerobic exercise programs have been used in the treatment of various health conditions, including musculoskeletal disorders. However, there is still little evidence on the effects of aerobic exercise for the treatment of older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Thus, the objective of this study is to assess the effects of aerobic exercise in improving pain and function of older adults with chronic pain as a consequence of different chronic musculoskeletal conditions. Methods The databases to be used in the search are PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Randomized controlled trials that used aerobic exercise in the treatment of older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain will be included. Primary outcomes will be pain and function. We will use the PEDro scale to evaluate the methodological quality and statistical description of each included study, and the strength of the recommendations will be summarized using GRADE. Discussion The results of this systematic review will provide a synthesis of the current evidence on the effects of aerobic exercise in the treatment of older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In addition, this information can help health professionals in decision-making about the use of aerobic exercise in the treatment of older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review was recorded prospectively, and the results will be part of a doctoral thesis to be published in a peer-reviewed international journal and possibly presented at international conferences. Systematic review registration PROSPERO, CRD42019118903.

scholarly journals Central neurobiological effects of physical exercise in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e036151
Author(s):  
Rutger M J de Zoete ◽  
Kenneth Chen ◽  
Michele Sterling
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Physical Exercise ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Exercise Intervention ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Brain Areas

ObjectivePrimary objectives: to investigate the central neurobiological effects (using MRI) of physical exercise in individuals with chronic pain. Secondary objectives: (1) to investigate the associations between central changes and clinical outcomes and (2) to investigate whether different types and dosages of physical exercise exert different central changes.DesignSystematic review searching four electronic databases up to September 2018: AMED, CINAHL, Embase and MEDLINE. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies-I tool. A standardised extraction table was used for data extraction, which was performed by two reviewers.InterventionsStudies reporting any physical exercise intervention in any chronic musculoskeletal pain condition were included. Eligibility of 4011 records was screened independently by two reviewers, and four studies were included in the review.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome: any brain outcome assessed with any MR technique. Secondary outcomes: any self-reported clinical outcomes, and type and dosage of the exercise intervention.ResultsAll four studies had high risk of bias. There was heterogeneity between the brain areas studied and the types of exercise interventions delivered. All studies reported functional MRI changes in various brain areas following an exercise intervention. Insufficient data were available to conduct a meta-analysis or to answer the secondary aims.ConclusionsOnly a limited number of studies were available and all were at high risk of bias. None of the studies was randomised or included blinded assessment. Exercise may exert effects on brain neurobiology in people with chronic pain. Due to the high risk of bias, future studies should use a randomised study design. Investigation of morphological brain changes could be included.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018108179.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document