Comparisons of the effects of psychologically-informed and usual physiotherapy on pain sensitivity in chronic low back pain: an exploratory randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The presence of altered central pain processing and modulation, as well as negative psychological factors, have been suggested to impede recovery in chronic low back pain (CLBP). Psychologically-informed physiotherapy (PiP) aims to specifically address the latter factors-in addition to physical factors-to improve treatment effects. This study aims to determine if the effect of PiP is superior to usual physiotherapy (UP) on pain sensitivity and modulation in participants with CLBP and if changes in these variables were associated with changes in clinical outcomes. Methods: Forty participants with CLBP were randomly allocated to PiP or UP. Seven physiotherapy sessions over 6 weeks plus a booster session at an 11-week follow-up were delivered. Pressure pain threshold (PPT), temporal summation of pain (TSP), and exercise-induced hypoalgesia were assessed on lumbar, upper, and lower limb sites at baseline and after 6 weeks. Linear mixed models tested if PiP was superior to UP on pain sensitivity/modulation. Linear regressions tested if pain sensitivity/modulation changes were associated with changes in clinical outcomes (pain intensity, physical functioning, symptoms of central sensitization). Results: PiP was not superior to UP to modulate pain sensitivity/modulation variables. All PPTs increased after 6 weeks regardless of the approach. Lumbar PPT and lumbar and lower limb TSP changes were associated with physical functioning changes. Conclusion: Although our study suggests that neither approach has a superiority to impact on pain sensitivity, both approaches elicited widespread hypoalgesia. Future powered trials should verify if pain sensitivity can be a mediator of physical functioning improvement, as suggested by our results.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".