This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Purpose To assess the effects of pain neuroscience education (PNE) on patients with fibromyalgia (FM) in terms of pain intensity, fibromyalgia impact, anxiety, and pain catastrophizing. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with RStudio software for relevant outcomes and were pooled in a meta-analysis using the random effects model. Results A total of 8 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in the pain intensity with a moderate clinical effect in 7 studies in the post-intervention assessment (SMD:-0.76; 95% CI:-1.33– -0.19; p < 0.05) with evidence of significant heterogeneity (p < 0.05, I2=92%) but not in fibromyalgia impact, anxiety, and pain catastrophizing (p > 0.05). Regarding the follow-up assessment, only the fibromyalgia impact showed significant improvements with a very small clinical effect in 9 studies (SMD:-0.44; 95% CI:-0.73– -0.14; p < 0.05) with evidence of significant heterogeneity (p < 0.05, I2 = 80%). Applying a sensitivity analysis with the PNE face-to-face interventions, the meta-analysis showed a significant decrease of pain intensity with a moderate clinical effect at post-intervention and follow-up without evidence of significant heterogeneity (p < 0.05, I2=10%). Conclusions There is low quality evidence that in patients with FM, PNE can decrease the pain intensity post-intervention and also the fibromyalgia impact in the follow-up. However, it appears that PNE showed no effect on anxiety and pain catastrophizing.

No abstract

No abstract

Methods: An umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis (MMA) was performed.A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, CINAHL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science until August 2021. Article selection, quality assessment, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The MMA were performed with a random-effects model and the summary statistics were presented in the form of forest plot with a weighted compilation of all standardized mean differences (SMD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).Results: Seven systematic reviews were included. Regarding CRF, the addition of HIIT to cancer treatment showed statistically significant differences with a small clinical effect, compared with adding other treatments (SMD = 0.45; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.65). There was no significant difference when compared with adding moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) (SMD = 0.23; 95% CI −0.04 to 0.50). QoL showed positive results although with some controversy. Adherence to HIIT intervention was high, ranging from 54% to 100%. Regarding adverse effects, most of the systematic reviews reported none, and in the cases in which they occurred, they were mild. Conclusion:In conjunction with first-choice cancer treatment, HIIT has been shown to be an effective intervention in terms of CRF and QoL, as well as having optimal adherence rate. In addition, the implementation of HIIT in patients with cancer or cancer survivors is safe as it showed no or few adverse effects.