Effects of pain neuroscience education and rehabilitation following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of pain neuroscience education (PNE) versus biomedical education (BME) in a rehabilitation program following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) in patients with chronic shoulder pain. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients who participated in a rehabilitation program were randomly assigned to either an experimental PNE group (N = 16) or a control BME group (N = 13). Measurements included pain intensity at rest and in movement, pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, disability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Outcomes were evaluated at baseline and at 4 and 8 weeks after the intervention. RESULTS: A main effect for time was observed for: intensity of pain at rest (p < .01); pain with movement (p < .01); pain catastrophizing (p < .01); kinesiophobia (p < .01); disability (p < .01); and HRQoL (p < .01). No group interactions were significant for any variable, except for pain with movement, which favored the PNE group (p = .03). Large effect sizes (ranging from d = 0.79 to d = 2.65) were found for both interventions in all outcomes. CONCLUSION: A rehabilitation program including either PNE or BME are equally effective in improving rest pain, pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, disability, and HRQoL in patients after ARCR, except for pain at movement in favor of the PNE group. The inclusion of PNE in the rehabilitation program appears to lead to clinically meaningful improvements in pain at rest in short term when treating patients with ARCR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".