Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37758676›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

NEUROCANTRIAL: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a pain neuroscience education programme in adults with cancer pain.

Leidy Tatiana Ordoñez-Mora, Ilem D Rosero, Marco Antonio Morales-Osorio, Rocío Guil, Giancarlo Quintero Jordan, Julian Alberto Agudelo Jimenez, Katherine Gonzalez-Ruiz, Juan Carlos Avila-Valencia

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05581784 (The Effectiveness of a Pain Neuroscience Education Program Compared to Conventional Treatment on Pain, Biopsychosocial Variables, and Functional Capacity in Adults With Cancer Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05581784 naunknown statusnot on this map

The Effectiveness of a Pain Neuroscience Education Program Compared to Conventional Treatment on Pain, Biopsychosocial Variables, and Functional Capacity in Adults With Cancer Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstituto Neurociencia Del DolorRan2023 to 2024Enrolled80ConditionsCancer PainArmsPain neuroscience education, Conventional management or Usual care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Leidy Tatiana Ordoñez-MoraDoctorate in Applied Sciences, Universidad Santiago de Cali, Cali, Colombia tatiana.ormora@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8365-8155
Ilem D RoseroDepartment of Health, Physiotherapy Program, Universidad Santiago de Cali, Cali, Colombia.
Marco Antonio Morales-OsorioDepartment of Health, Universidad de la Costa, Barranquilla, Colombia.
Rocío GuilDepartment of Psychology, Universidad de Cádiz, Puerto Real, Spain.
Giancarlo Quintero JordanHealth and Movement Research Group, Universidad Santiago de Cali, Cali, Colombia.
Julian Alberto Agudelo JimenezGrupo de investigación y Educación Clínica de Occidente GIECDO, Centro Medico Clinica de Occidente, Cali, Valle del Cauca, Colombia.
Katherine Gonzalez-RuizDepartment of Health, Physiotherapy Program, Universidad Santiago de Cali, Cali, Colombia.
Juan Carlos Avila-ValenciaDepartment of Health, Physiotherapy Program, Universidad Santiago de Cali, Cali, Colombia.
Universidad Santiago de Cali · COUniversidad de Cádiz · ESUniversidad Autónoma de Occidente · COUniversity of the Coast · CO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPain is the second most frequent symptom reported in patients with cancer among the main reasons for consultation. The incorporation of educational modalities in pain intervention processes has been suggested. This study aims to examine the efficacy of neuroscience pain education (PNE) in relation to pain, biopsychosocial variables and functional capacity in comparison with conventional treatment. It is hypothesised that an intervention based on PNE achieves better outcomes than conventional management, in terms of pain, biopsychosocial variables and functional capacity in adults with oncological pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a single-blind, controlled clinical trial in which two groups will be compared using changes in pain as the primary measure. The first group will receive conventional treatment in addition to PNE, and participants will undergo an intervention of nine sessions (one session per week, for a total of 9 weeks), each lasting 30-40 min. Specifically, these sessions will teach biophysiological elements using metaphors that allow the adoption of these concepts related to pain. The second group will receive conventional treatment (pharmacological treatment). For this study, a sample size calculation was made based on the background, where 80 adults with oncological pain were required. An initial evaluation will be made to establish the baseline characteristics, and then, according to the randomisation, the assignment to the PNE group or the control group will be made and the two groups will be summoned again. Ten weeks later, for the intervention evaluation, the statistical analysis plan will be established by protocol and by intention-to-treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol complies with all ethical considerations. The authors commit to presenting the study's results. This study was approved by the ethics committees of the Universidad Santiago de Cali, Clínica de Occidente/Angiografía de Occidente. The authors commit to presenting the study's results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05581784.

Indexed as

Cancer PainNeoplasmsAdultHumansPainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeCancer painHealth EducationPain managementPALLIATIVE CAREREHABILITATION MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID37758676
PMCPMC10537834
OpenAlexW4387078879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.