• Anneleen Malfliet, Jeroen Kregel, Mira Meeus, Lieven Danneels, Barbara Cagnie, Nathalie Roussel, and Jo Nijs.
• Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO), Brussels, Belgium; Pain in Motion International Research Group, www.paininmotion.be; Department of Physical Medicine and Physiotherapy, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy (KIMA), Faculty of Physical Education & Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Medical Campus Jette, Building F-Kine, Brussels, Belgium(∗). Electronic address: Anneleen.Malfliet@vub.be.
• PM R. 2018 Dec 1; 10 (12): 1330-1343.e1.

BackgroundPain neuroscience education is effective in chronic pain management. Central sensitization (ie, generalized hypersensitivity) is often explained as the underlying mechanism for chronic pain, because of its clinical relevance and influence on pain severity, prognosis, and treatment outcome.ObjectivesTo examine whether patients with more or fewer symptoms of central sensitization respond differently to pain neuroscience education.DesignA secondary analysis of a multicenter, triple-blind randomized controlled trial.SettingUniversity Hospital Ghent and University Hospital Brussels, Belgium.Patients120 persons with chronic spinal pain with high or low self-reported symptoms of central sensitization.InterventionsPain neuroscience education or neck/back school. Both interventions were delivered in 3 sessions: 1 group session, 1 online session, and 1 individual session.Main Outcome Measuresdisability (primary), pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, illness perceptions, and hypervigilance.ResultsPain disability did not change in any group (P = .242). Regarding secondary outcomes: significant interaction effects were found for pain catastrophizing (P-values: P = .02 to P = .05), kinesiophobia (P = .02), and several aspects of illness perceptions (chronicity: P = .002; negative consequences: P = .02; personal control: P = .02; and cyclicity: P = .02). Bonferroni post hoc analysis showed that only the pain neuroscience education group (high and low self-reported symptoms of central sensitization) showed a significant improvement regarding kinesiophobia (P < .001, medium effect sizes), perceived negative consequence (P = .004 and P < .001, small to medium effect sizes), and perceived cyclicity of the illness (P = .01 and P = .01, small effect sizes). Pain catastrophizing only significantly reduced in people with high self-reported central sensitization symptoms (P < .05).ConclusionPain neuroscience education is useful in all patients with chronic spinal pain as it improves kinesiophobia and the perceived negative consequences and cyclicity of the illness regardless the self-reported signs of central sensitization. Regarding pain catastrophizing, pain neuroscience education is more effective in patients with high self-reported symptoms of central sensitization.Level Of EvidenceI.Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

23 keywords...

hide…