ArticlePloS one2025
An overview of the treatment interventions and assessment of fear-avoidance for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Fear-Avoidance (FA) model aims to explain how an acute pain experience can develop into a persistent state. The FA model considers five core components: kinesiophobia, pain-related fear, catastrophisation, victimisation, and interpersonal social environment. Amongst these, kinesiophobia, tends to dominate the literature on chronic musculoskeletal pain. As a result, current reviews have not considered the other core components of the FA model when exploring its interventions. Moreover, several synonyms of the term kinesiophobia is not reflected in their search strategies. Coupled with the preference of particular study designs and outcome measures, this scoping review aims to provide and characterise an overview of treatment interventions that consider all study designs, relevant outcome measures, FA components, and FA component synonyms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Eligible studies will be in English or with an available English translation from 1970 onwards. Databases to be searched include Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, The Allied and Complementary Database (AMED), PEDro, Web of Science, and grey literature. We will include studies involving participants ≥18 years old with chronic musculoskeletal pain, and interventions targeting FA and/or its components. Three review authors will independently screen papers using preestablished eligibility criteria and conduct assessments of risk of bias, with a fourth independent researcher employed to resolve disagreements where found. Qualitative synthesis techniques will be used to characterise the interventions. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has been utilised to develop this protocol and will be conducted following completion of the systematic review to discuss and reflect on the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review does not require ethical approval as existing data will be used and the PPI to be conducted is an involvement activity rather than study data. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and via national and international conferences. OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK REGISTRATION NUMBER: This protocol is registered on Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NR37A.
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.