{"title":"恐惧-回避信念对腰椎退行性椎间盘病术后疼痛和功能障碍的预后价值:一项meta分析","authors":"Zhenni Zhao, Jiawei Li, Rui Zhang, Yun Feng, Yanyan He, Zhiling Sun","doi":"10.1097/MRR.0000000000000567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study aimed to explore the prognostic value of fear-avoidance beliefs (FABs) on postoperative pain and back-specific function for patients with lumbar degenerative disk disease (LDDD). FABs have been proven to be a predictorof pain and disability for patients with low back pain. However, whether FABs are a predictor of surgical outcomes for LDDD is a matter of debate. PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and EBSCO were searched for eligible cohort studies or secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials. Fixed-effect meta-analysis models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) because of absent or low heterogeneity ( I ² < 50%). Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different follow-up durations. Forest plots were used for graphical representation. Six studies with a total of 829 participants were included in the meta-analyses. Risk of bias was high for three studies and moderate for the other three studies. For patients with LDDD, meta-analyses showed that FABs were a predictor of postoperative pain intensity [OR 2.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.76-3.00] and back-specific function (OR 3.13; 95% CI, 3.02-3.24). Patients with FABs are less likely to report improvement in pain (OR 2.56; 95% CI, 1.73-3.86) and function (OR 2.81; 95% CI, 2.57-3.07). In conclusion, FABs were a predictor of postoperative pain and back-specific function for patients with LDDD. This prognostic value is sustained for a long period after surgery (>12 months). Clinicians are advised to initiate targeted interventions for patients with FABs at different stages after surgery. Due to the limited number and low quality of included studies, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":14301,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research","volume":"46 1","pages":"3-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The prognostic value of fear-avoidance beliefs on postoperative pain and dysfunction for lumbar degenerative disk disease: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Zhenni Zhao, Jiawei Li, Rui Zhang, Yun Feng, Yanyan He, Zhiling Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MRR.0000000000000567\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The study aimed to explore the prognostic value of fear-avoidance beliefs (FABs) on postoperative pain and back-specific function for patients with lumbar degenerative disk disease (LDDD). FABs have been proven to be a predictorof pain and disability for patients with low back pain. However, whether FABs are a predictor of surgical outcomes for LDDD is a matter of debate. PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and EBSCO were searched for eligible cohort studies or secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials. Fixed-effect meta-analysis models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) because of absent or low heterogeneity ( I ² < 50%). Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different follow-up durations. Forest plots were used for graphical representation. Six studies with a total of 829 participants were included in the meta-analyses. Risk of bias was high for three studies and moderate for the other three studies. For patients with LDDD, meta-analyses showed that FABs were a predictor of postoperative pain intensity [OR 2.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.76-3.00] and back-specific function (OR 3.13; 95% CI, 3.02-3.24). Patients with FABs are less likely to report improvement in pain (OR 2.56; 95% CI, 1.73-3.86) and function (OR 2.81; 95% CI, 2.57-3.07). In conclusion, FABs were a predictor of postoperative pain and back-specific function for patients with LDDD. This prognostic value is sustained for a long period after surgery (>12 months). Clinicians are advised to initiate targeted interventions for patients with FABs at different stages after surgery. Due to the limited number and low quality of included studies, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14301,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"3-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000567\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000567","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
The prognostic value of fear-avoidance beliefs on postoperative pain and dysfunction for lumbar degenerative disk disease: a meta-analysis.
The study aimed to explore the prognostic value of fear-avoidance beliefs (FABs) on postoperative pain and back-specific function for patients with lumbar degenerative disk disease (LDDD). FABs have been proven to be a predictorof pain and disability for patients with low back pain. However, whether FABs are a predictor of surgical outcomes for LDDD is a matter of debate. PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and EBSCO were searched for eligible cohort studies or secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials. Fixed-effect meta-analysis models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) because of absent or low heterogeneity ( I ² < 50%). Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different follow-up durations. Forest plots were used for graphical representation. Six studies with a total of 829 participants were included in the meta-analyses. Risk of bias was high for three studies and moderate for the other three studies. For patients with LDDD, meta-analyses showed that FABs were a predictor of postoperative pain intensity [OR 2.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.76-3.00] and back-specific function (OR 3.13; 95% CI, 3.02-3.24). Patients with FABs are less likely to report improvement in pain (OR 2.56; 95% CI, 1.73-3.86) and function (OR 2.81; 95% CI, 2.57-3.07). In conclusion, FABs were a predictor of postoperative pain and back-specific function for patients with LDDD. This prognostic value is sustained for a long period after surgery (>12 months). Clinicians are advised to initiate targeted interventions for patients with FABs at different stages after surgery. Due to the limited number and low quality of included studies, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Rehabilitation Research is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary forum for the publication of research into functioning, disability and contextual factors experienced by persons of all ages in both developed and developing societies. The wealth of information offered makes the journal a valuable resource for researchers, practitioners, and administrators in such fields as rehabilitation medicine, outcome measurement nursing, social and vocational rehabilitation/case management, return to work, special education, social policy, social work and social welfare, sociology, psychology, psychiatry assistive technology and environmental factors/disability. Areas of interest include functioning and disablement throughout the life cycle; rehabilitation programmes for persons with physical, sensory, mental and developmental disabilities; measurement of functioning and disability; special education and vocational rehabilitation; equipment access and transportation; information technology; independent living; consumer, legal, economic and sociopolitical aspects of functioning, disability and contextual factors.