MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200252420 · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzab274

The Relationship Between Pain-Related Threat and Motor Behavior in Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W4200252420 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Patrick Ippersiel, Anthony Teoli, Timothy H. Wideman, Richard Preuss, Shawn M. Robbins

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre de réadaptation Lethbridge-Layton-MackayCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsPain catastrophizingCINAHLLow back painPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineTrunkRange of motionChronic painPsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although pain-related fear and catastrophizing are predictors of disability in low back pain (LBP), their relationship with guarded motor behavior is unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the relationship between pain-related threat (via pain-related fear and catastrophizing) and motor behavior during functional tasks in adults with LBP. METHODS: This review followed PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched to April 2021. Included studies measured the association between pain-related fear or pain catastrophizing and motor behavior (spinal range of motion, trunk coordination and variability, muscle activity) during movement in adults with nonspecific LBP. Studies were excluded if participants were postsurgery or diagnosed with specific LBP. Two independent reviewers extracted all data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess for risk of bias. Correlation coefficients were pooled using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Reduced spinal range of motion during flexion tasks was weakly related to pain-related fear (15 studies, r = -0.21, 95% CI = -0.31 to -0.11) and pain catastrophizing (7 studies, r = -0.24, 95% CI = -0.38 to -0.087). Pain-related fear was unrelated to spinal extension (3 studies, r = -0.16, 95% CI = -0.33 to 0.026). Greater trunk extensor muscle activity during bending was moderately related to pain-related fear (2 studies, r = -0.40, 95% CI = -0.55 to -0.23). Pain catastrophizing, but not fear, was related to higher trunk activity during gait (2 studies, r = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.063 to 0.42). Methodological differences and missing data limited robust syntheses of studies examining muscle activity, so these findings should be interpreted carefully. CONCLUSION: This study found a weak to moderate relationship between pain-related threat and guarded motor behavior during flexion-based tasks, but not consistently during other movements. IMPACT: These findings provide a jumping-off point for future clinical research to explore the advantages of integrated treatment strategies that target both psychological and motor behavior processes compared with traditional approaches.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207