ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2025
[Current knowledge among German physiotherapists on the subject of pain].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Current level of knowledge about pain among German physiotherapy lecturers].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- In the Light of Healthcare Professionals: Beliefs About Chronic Low Back Pain.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
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
backgroundPain is an omnipresent symptom in the field of musculoskeletal healthcare. Person-centred care in accordance with current scientific recommendations requires comprehensive and evidence-based knowledge about pain. However, there appears to be a lack of knowledge in this area both internationally and nationally.
aimThis study aimed to evaluate the pain-related knowledge and postural-structural-biomechanical (PSB) beliefs regarding pain among physiotherapists practicing in Germany.
methodAn online survey, which included the German version of the revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (rNPQ-D) and the Essential Knowledge of Pain Questionnaire (EKPQ), was answered by n = 105 physiotherapists using SoSci Survey. A satisfactory result is achieved when at least 90% of the participants answer at least eight of the 12 questions correctly. Additionally, the possible influence of the variables 'academic degree' and 'working experience' of the participants on the questionnaire scores was investigated.
resultsThe average score of the rNPQ‑D was 70.8 ± 15.4% (95% CI: 67.8-73.8%). The average score of the EKPQ was 51.4 ± 26% (95% CI: 46.4-56.4%). Neither the rNPQ‑D (69.5% of participants; n = 73) nor the EKPQ (30.6% of participants; n = 32) yielded a satisfactory result. The scores of the questionnaires correlated moderately positively and statistically significantly with each other (r = 0.47; p < 0.001). The average score of the EKPQ was significantly lower than the average score of the rNPQ‑D (p < 0.01; d = 0.84). Academically trained therapists achieved higher average scores than those non-academically trained (p < 0.05; rNPQ-D: d = 0.48, EKPQ: d = 0.42). Furthermore, participants with ≤5 years of professional experience achieved significantly higher scores than participants with >5 years of professional experience (p < 0.05; rNPQ-D: d = 0.75; EKPQ: d = 0.68).
conclusionThe knowledge among physiotherapists in Germany about pain appears to be deficient and strongly PSB-orientated. In addition, academically trained therapists seem to have a more pronounced theoretical and case-related knowledge of pain compared to graduates of vocational physiotherapy training programmes. To ensure successful and effective future treatment of individuals experiencing pain, it is imperative to systematically investigate the potential causes of such deficits. Physiotherapeutic pain care in Germany should strive for a systemic change in favour of evidence-based practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39514128What 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.