ReviewFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2026
Advances in rehabilitation for bone and joint pain: a critical narrative review of evidence, gaps, and future directions.
Review in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic bone and joint pain is highly prevalent, and rehabilitation is a core component of care. This critical narrative review uses a transparent, structured evidence-mapping approach to examine rehabilitation studies published from January 2021 to April 2026, integrate findings across intervention classes, and identify evidence gaps. Across the included evidence base, exercise therapy supports pain and functional outcomes in selected musculoskeletal conditions, although optimal dose and phenotype-specific matching remain uncertain. Manual therapy and physical modalities may provide short-term adjunctive symptom relief, but their effects are conditional on technique, context, and protocol. Digital rehabilitation and virtual-reality-based approaches can improve access and engagement, but functional and long-term benefits are heterogeneous. Low-load blood-flow-restriction training is promising where high external loads are not tolerated; safety, dose, and longer-term effectiveness require further study. Rather than implying a universal precision-rehabilitation model, we present phenotype-informed treatment matching as a research agenda. Key limitations include heterogeneity of populations, interventions, outcome measures, and follow-up, the selective nature of narrative synthesis, publication bias, and the absence of pooled quantitative estimates. Exercise remains a foundation of care, with adjuncts selected according to presentation, patient priorities, feasibility, and response to reassessment.
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.