Title |
Efficacy of a modern neuroscience approach versus usual care evidence-based physiotherapy on pain, disability and brain characteristics in chronic spinal pain patients: protocol of a randomized clinical trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-15-149 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Mieke Dolphens, Jo Nijs, Barbara Cagnie, Mira Meeus, Nathalie Roussel, Jeroen Kregel, Anneleen Malfliet, Guy Vanderstraeten, Lieven Danneels |
Abstract |
Among the multiple conservative modalities, physiotherapy is a commonly utilized treatment modality in managing chronic non-specific spinal pain. Despite the scientific progresses with regard to pain and motor control neuroscience, treatment of chronic spinal pain (CSP) often tends to stick to a peripheral biomechanical model, without targeting brain mechanisms. With a view to enhance clinical efficacy of existing physiotherapeutic treatments for CSP, the development of clinical strategies targeted at 'training the brain' is to be pursued. Promising proof-of-principle results have been reported for the effectiveness of a modern neuroscience approach to CSP when compared to usual care, but confirmation is required in a larger, multi-center trial with appropriate evidence-based control intervention and long-term follow-up.The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a modern neuroscience approach, compared to usual care evidence-based physiotherapy, for reducing pain and improving functioning in patients with CSP. A secondary objective entails examining the effectiveness of the modern neuroscience approach versus usual care physiotherapy for normalizing brain gray matter in patients with CSP. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 6 | 17% |
Netherlands | 3 | 8% |
Spain | 3 | 8% |
Germany | 2 | 6% |
Norway | 2 | 6% |
Ireland | 2 | 6% |
United States | 1 | 3% |
Canada | 1 | 3% |
Australia | 1 | 3% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 15 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 27 | 75% |
Scientists | 6 | 17% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Norway | 1 | <1% |
Chile | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Italy | 1 | <1% |
Israel | 1 | <1% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 458 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 84 | 18% |
Student > Bachelor | 48 | 10% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 8% |
Other | 33 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 32 | 7% |
Other | 91 | 19% |
Unknown | 142 | 30% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 131 | 28% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 91 | 19% |
Neuroscience | 18 | 4% |
Psychology | 15 | 3% |
Sports and Recreations | 11 | 2% |
Other | 37 | 8% |
Unknown | 166 | 35% |