A Call for Improving Research on Pain Neuroscience Education and Chronic Pain: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Ref ID 889
First Author J. Martinez-Calderon
Journal JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC & SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY
Year Of Publishing 2023
URL https://www.jospt.org/doi/10.2519/jospt.2023.11833
Keywords Pain
Publication bias
Disclosure
Low reporting quality
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Poor consideration of publication bias
Number of systematic reviews included 8
Summary of Findings From eight systematic review the effects of pain neuroscience education delivered alone or combined with other interventions for chronic pain indexed across CINAHL (via EBSCOhost), Embase, PsycINFO (via ProQuest), PubMed, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 14, 2022. All of the systematic reviews (n = 8/8, 100%) were judged to have a critically low methodological quality (AMSTAR 2). Only 2 reviews provided a list of excluded studies (n = 2/8, 25%) or adequately assessed publication bias, and only 1 reported the funding source for the clinical trials they included (n = 7/8, 87%). There was also an overall primary study overlap of 13% and higher overlap for specific conditions e.g. chronic low back pain (40%). Four out of eight systematic reviews published during 2022 evaluated similar research questions.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes