ArticleBrain sciences2022
The Efficacy of Pain Neuroscience Education on Active Rehabilitation Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A CONSORT-Compliant Prospective Randomized Single-Blind Controlled Trial.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pain neuroscience education (PNE), a modern educational therapy, has been reported to be effective in pain control by reducing fear of movement. This study investigated the effects of additional PNE on a physical therapy rehabilitation protocol (PTRP) following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). In this single-blind, randomized controlled trial, 34 patients who had undergone ARCR were randomly allocated (1:1) into two groups: PNE (PTRP plus PNE) and PTRP. PTRP was performed five times a week, for four weeks, 115 min per session (physical agents, manual therapy, and exercises), and PNE was performed twice at the beginning (face-to-face PNE) and end (non-face-to-face) of the PTRP. The outcome measures were measured four times for pain intensity, pain cognition, and shoulder function; two times for a range of motion; and once for satisfaction. No significant difference in pain intensity was observed between the groups. However, in pain cognition, the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia avoidance showed a significant interaction between time and group, and PNE showed a higher effect size than PTRP in the post-test and follow-up in several variables. In conclusion, the significant improvement in avoidance in postoperative rehabilitation suggests that there is a partially positive benefit in terms of pain, range of motion, and shoulder function in ARCR patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.