ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Physical therapist perceptions and use of clinical pain mechanism assessment in the musculoskeletal setting: a survey analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Effects and Mechanisms of Wrist-Ankle Acupuncture on Inflammatory Pain in the Rat Gastrocnemius Muscle.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Applying Nociplastic Pain Criteria in Chronic Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Vignette Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA mechanism-based approach to the evaluation and management of pain has been suggested across disciplines in contemporary research. However, the translation of pain mechanism assessment strategies in research to clinical practice is unclear. This study sought to explore perceptions and use of clinical pain mechanism assessment by physical therapists managing musculoskeletal pain.
methodsThis was an electronic cross-sectional survey. After initial development, refinement, and piloting for comprehensiveness, comprehensibility and relevance, the survey was disseminated to members of the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy via email listserv. Data was maintained anonymously using the online database REDCap. Descriptive statistics and Spearman's correlations for non-parametric data were analyzed for frequencies and associations across variables.
resultsIn total, 148 respondents completed all aspects of the survey. Respondent age ranged from 26 to 73 years, with a mean (SD) of 43.9 (12.0). Most respondents (70.8%) reported performing clinical pain mechanism assessments at least 'sometimes'. A majority (80.4%) believed clinical pain mechanism assessments are useful in guiding management strategies while 79.8% reported specifically choosing interventions to alter aberrant pain mechanisms. The most commonly used pain severity, physical examination testing and questionnaires were the numeric pain rating scale, pressure pain thresholds and pain diagrams, respectively. However, the vast majority of instruments to clinically assess pain mechanisms were performed by a small proportion of respondents (< 30%). There were no significant correlations between age, years of experience, highest earned degree, completion of advanced training or specialist certification and testing frequency.
conclusionThe evaluation of pain mechanisms involved in the pain experience is becoming common in research. The clinical application of pain mechanism assessment is unclear. Based on the results of this survey, physical therapists in the orthopedic setting believe pain mechanism assessment is useful, but data suggests it is infrequently performed. Additional research to uncover clinician motivation related to pain mechanism assessment is warranted.
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.