Objective 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. Design Single-blind randomized controlled trial. Setting Three fibromyalgia centers in Spain (Valencia, Alcorcón, Alcalá de Henares). Subjects Seventy-seven patients with fibromyalgia. Methods 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. Results 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). Conclusions 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.

ObjectivesCompare the immediate effects of a Neurodynamic Mobilization (NM) treatment or foam roller (FR) treatment after DOMS.DesignDouble blind randomised clinical trial.SettingThe 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.ParticipantsThirty-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 MeasuresThe 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.ResultsBoth 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.ConclusionOur 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.

No abstract

These findings suggest that pain catastrophizing and fear-avoidance beliefs are related with postural stability in subjects with knee and hip OA. Postural stability is negatively correlated with pain catastrophizing and TSK activity avoidance. Thus, based on these results, psychosocial factors should be taken into consideration in the assessment and treatment of patients with hip and knee OA.