ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
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.
Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability. While education is recommended by most guidelines, the type of language used can lead to a placebo or nocebo effect. This study aims to compare the short-term effect of negative language versus positive language on physical and functional capacity in individuals with chronic primary LBP.
methodsForty-six adults with chronic primary LBP were recruited and received standardized negative (n = 23) or positive (n = 23) messages about LBP immediately before physical (isometric/isokinetic trunk flexion and extension) and functional capacity (Back Performance Scale (BPS); five times sit-to-stand (FTSTS)) tests. Pain intensity and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of trunk muscles were also measured before (T0) and after intervention (T1).
resultsGroups were comparable at baseline for sociodemographic, psychobehavioral (Start Back Screening Tool) characteristics, and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). No between-group differences were detected for physical (all p > 0.18) or functional capacity (FTSTS: p = 0.781; BPS: p = 0.665). Pain intensity increased from T0 to T1 in both groups (p < 0.001), without minimal clinically important difference and with no group or interaction effect. PPT showed no main effects or interactions across the seven measurement sites (all p > 0.08).
conclusionNo significant short-term difference was found between negative and positive language on physical and functional capacity, pain intensity, or PPT in individuals with chronic primary LBP. Future studies should examine tailored negative or positive language delivered over multiple sessions to clarify the effect of language type on physical and functional outcomes in individuals with chronic primary LBP. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: There is growing evidence suggesting that the type of language used may influence various clinical outcomes, such as anxiety, catastrophizing, or disability, in people with chronic primary LBP. However, no study has shown whether language style can influence trunk strength and functional capacity in this population. This study shows that there is no short-term difference in physical and functional capacity among people with chronic primary LBP exposed to negative or positive language.
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.