• P G Wittkopf, D M Lloyd, and M I Johnson.
• Centre for Pain Research, School of Clinical and Applied Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
• Eur J Pain. 2018 Apr 1; 22 (4): 647-662.

AbstractThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of visual feedback techniques on pain perception by analysing the effect of normal-sized, magnified or minified visual feedback of body parts on clinical and experimentally-induced pain. Databases searched: Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, PEDro, CINAHL, CENTRAL and OpenSIGLE. Studies investigating pain patients and pain-free participants exposed to experimentally-induced pain were analysed separately. Risk of bias was assessed and data were meta-analysed. Thirty four studies were included. A meta-analysis of clinical data favoured mirror visual feedback (six trials; mean difference = -13.06 mm; 95% CI = -23.97, -2.16). Subgroup analysis favoured mirror visual feedback when used as a course of treatment (three trials; mean difference = -12.76 mm; 95% CI = -24.11, -1.40) and when used for complex regional pain syndrome for complex regional pain syndrome (three trials; standard mean difference = -1.44; 95% CI = -1.88, -0.99). There is insufficient evidence to determine differences between normal-sized view and a size-distorted view of the limb. Mirror visual feedback was not superior to object view or direct view of the hand for reducing experimental pain in pain-free participants. There were inconsistencies in study findings comparing normal-sized reflection of a body part and a reflection of an object, or a magnified or minified reflection. There is tentative evidence that mirror visual feedback can alleviate pain when delivered as a course of treatment, and for patients with complex regional pain syndrome. It was not possible to determine whether normal-sized, magnified or minified visual feedback of body parts affects pain perception because of contradictory findings in primary studies.© 2017 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.

8 keywords...

hide…