Trial reportEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2025
The Effect of Information on the Time Course of Pain During an Episode of Acute Experimentally Induced Low Back Pain-A Randomised Experiment.
Trial report in European journal of pain (London, England), 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.
- Short-Term Effect of Negative Verbal Language Versus Positive Verbal Language on Physical and Functional Capacity and Pain in People With Chronic Primary Low Back Pain.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
- Working Memory Load-Dependent Cortical Mechanism of Distraction Analgesia in Healthy Individuals: An fNIRS Study.Journal of pain research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared the time course of pain intensity ratings between two groups who were given different information during an episode of acute experimentally induced LBP.
methodsFifty weight-training naive and pain-free people participated in this randomised clinical experiment. Immediately after performing a back exercise intended to cause delayed onset muscle soreness, one group was told that their muscles had been damaged and advised they needed to protect their back over the coming days. The other group's symptoms were described in terms of tissue sensitisation, and they were advised to keep moving. The primary outcome was movement-evoked low back pain intensity measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10). Pain intensity was recorded at baseline, immediately after the intervention and then daily for 7 days. The method of generalised estimating equations (GEE) was used to estimate treatment effects for average daily pain.
resultsMovement-evoked pain intensity scores changed over time in both groups (main effect of time: χ^2(7) = 246.2, p < 0.001). However, the intervention did not affect movement-evoked pain intensity scores (main effect of group: χ^2(1) = 0.02, p < 0.895). The adjusted mean difference between the groups was only -0.05/10 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.63, p = 0.895) when averaged across all time points.
conclusionsWe simulated an episode of low back pain and found that information based on tissue sensitivity and advice to remain active did not improve pain compared to information referencing tissue damage and advice to rest and protect the back. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Contemporary clinical guidelines and models of care recommend avoiding pathoanatomical diagnostic labels and encourage clinicians to advise patients to stay active during an episode of acute low back pain (LBP). We simulated an episode of acute LBP and found that information based on tissue sensitivity and advice to remain active did not improve pain compared to information referencing tissue damage and advice to rest and protect the back. The results could be different if repeated in a clinical population.
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.