在生物心理社会框架内,不干预方法单独或与实践方法相结合治疗慢性颈椎疼痛的有效性:系统回顾

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Kübra Canlı , Charbel Najem , Jessica Van Oosterwijck , Mira Meeus , Kayleigh De Meulemeester
{"title":"在生物心理社会框架内,不干预方法单独或与实践方法相结合治疗慢性颈椎疼痛的有效性:系统回顾","authors":"Kübra Canlı ,&nbsp;Charbel Najem ,&nbsp;Jessica Van Oosterwijck ,&nbsp;Mira Meeus ,&nbsp;Kayleigh De Meulemeester","doi":"10.1016/j.jpsychores.2025.112086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study aimed to systematically review the current literature comparing hands-off approaches with hands-on approaches from a biopsychosocial perspective of pain processing in people suffering from chronic primary neck pain (CPNP).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>An electronic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Initial searches were carried out in November 2022, with electronic database searches repeated on November 25, 2024. Eligibility criteria which were randomized controlled trials comparing hands-off approaches alone or in combination with hands-on approaches and hands-on approaches alone in people with CPNP were checked by two independent authors. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB). The strength of conclusion was determined using the evidence-based guideline development approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifteen studies with a total of 1029 participants were included in this review. The RoB was rated as low RoB for two studies, some concerns for two studies and high RoB for 11 studies.</div><div>Pain processing was assessed by pain intensity(100 % of the studies), pain sensitivity(53 % of the studies), pain-related participation in social roles(46 % of the studies), pain-related emotions(26 % of the studies), and pain-related beliefs(6 % of the studies). Limited quality of evidence was found for the hands-off approaches alone being more effective on pain intensity than hands-on approaches alone in the long term. Limited- to moderate-quality of evidence was found for hands-off approaches combined with hands-on approaches, being more effective than hands-on approaches alone in improving pain intensity, pain sensitivity, pain-related participation in social roles, pain-related emotions, and pain-related beliefs in the short-, mid- or long-term.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The current findings suggest that hands-off approaches alone are superior to hands-on approaches in the long term, at least for pain intensity. Hands-off approaches in combination with hands-on approaches were also more effective than hands-on approaches for pain processing. However, substantial heterogeneity warrants a cautious interpretation of these results. More high-quality, randomized, controlled trials with homogenous data collection and larger sample sizes are needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50074,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychosomatic Research","volume":"192 ","pages":"Article 112086"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effectiveness of hands-off approaches alone or in combination with hands-on approaches in the treatment of chronic cervical pain within a biopsychosocial framework: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Kübra Canlı ,&nbsp;Charbel Najem ,&nbsp;Jessica Van Oosterwijck ,&nbsp;Mira Meeus ,&nbsp;Kayleigh De Meulemeester\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpsychores.2025.112086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study aimed to systematically review the current literature comparing hands-off approaches with hands-on approaches from a biopsychosocial perspective of pain processing in people suffering from chronic primary neck pain (CPNP).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>An electronic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Initial searches were carried out in November 2022, with electronic database searches repeated on November 25, 2024. Eligibility criteria which were randomized controlled trials comparing hands-off approaches alone or in combination with hands-on approaches and hands-on approaches alone in people with CPNP were checked by two independent authors. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB). The strength of conclusion was determined using the evidence-based guideline development approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifteen studies with a total of 1029 participants were included in this review. The RoB was rated as low RoB for two studies, some concerns for two studies and high RoB for 11 studies.</div><div>Pain processing was assessed by pain intensity(100 % of the studies), pain sensitivity(53 % of the studies), pain-related participation in social roles(46 % of the studies), pain-related emotions(26 % of the studies), and pain-related beliefs(6 % of the studies). Limited quality of evidence was found for the hands-off approaches alone being more effective on pain intensity than hands-on approaches alone in the long term. Limited- to moderate-quality of evidence was found for hands-off approaches combined with hands-on approaches, being more effective than hands-on approaches alone in improving pain intensity, pain sensitivity, pain-related participation in social roles, pain-related emotions, and pain-related beliefs in the short-, mid- or long-term.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The current findings suggest that hands-off approaches alone are superior to hands-on approaches in the long term, at least for pain intensity. Hands-off approaches in combination with hands-on approaches were also more effective than hands-on approaches for pain processing. However, substantial heterogeneity warrants a cautious interpretation of these results. More high-quality, randomized, controlled trials with homogenous data collection and larger sample sizes are needed.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Psychosomatic Research\",\"volume\":\"192 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112086\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Psychosomatic Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022399925000509\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychosomatic Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022399925000509","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的从生物心理社会角度对慢性原发性颈部疼痛(CPNP)患者的疼痛加工进行比较,并对目前的文献进行系统回顾。方法在PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus、Cochrane Library进行电子检索。初步搜索于2022年11月进行,并于2024年11月25日再次进行电子数据库搜索。资格标准是随机对照试验,比较不干预方法单独或联合实践方法和单独实践方法对CPNP患者的影响,由两位独立作者检查。使用修订后的Cochrane风险偏倚工具(RoB)评估偏倚风险。采用循证指南制定方法确定结论的强度。结果本综述纳入了15项研究,共1029名受试者。两项研究的RoB被评为低RoB,两项研究被评为一些关注,11项研究被评为高RoB。通过疼痛强度(100%的研究)、疼痛敏感性(53%的研究)、与疼痛相关的社会角色参与(46%的研究)、与疼痛相关的情绪(26%的研究)和与疼痛相关的信念(6%的研究)来评估疼痛处理。从长期来看,证据质量有限,证明单独的不干预方法比单独的动手方法对疼痛强度更有效。在短期、中期或长期的改善疼痛强度、疼痛敏感性、与疼痛相关的社会角色参与、与疼痛相关的情绪和与疼痛相关的信念方面,不干预方法与实践方法相结合的证据质量有限至中等。结论:目前的研究结果表明,从长远来看,不干预的方法比直接干预的方法要好,至少在疼痛强度方面是这样。在疼痛处理方面,放手方法与动手方法相结合也比动手方法更有效。然而,实质性的异质性保证了对这些结果的谨慎解释。需要更多的高质量、随机、对照试验,数据收集均匀,样本量更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The effectiveness of hands-off approaches alone or in combination with hands-on approaches in the treatment of chronic cervical pain within a biopsychosocial framework: A systematic review

Purpose

This study aimed to systematically review the current literature comparing hands-off approaches with hands-on approaches from a biopsychosocial perspective of pain processing in people suffering from chronic primary neck pain (CPNP).

Methods

An electronic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Initial searches were carried out in November 2022, with electronic database searches repeated on November 25, 2024. Eligibility criteria which were randomized controlled trials comparing hands-off approaches alone or in combination with hands-on approaches and hands-on approaches alone in people with CPNP were checked by two independent authors. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB). The strength of conclusion was determined using the evidence-based guideline development approach.

Results

Fifteen studies with a total of 1029 participants were included in this review. The RoB was rated as low RoB for two studies, some concerns for two studies and high RoB for 11 studies.
Pain processing was assessed by pain intensity(100 % of the studies), pain sensitivity(53 % of the studies), pain-related participation in social roles(46 % of the studies), pain-related emotions(26 % of the studies), and pain-related beliefs(6 % of the studies). Limited quality of evidence was found for the hands-off approaches alone being more effective on pain intensity than hands-on approaches alone in the long term. Limited- to moderate-quality of evidence was found for hands-off approaches combined with hands-on approaches, being more effective than hands-on approaches alone in improving pain intensity, pain sensitivity, pain-related participation in social roles, pain-related emotions, and pain-related beliefs in the short-, mid- or long-term.

Conclusions

The current findings suggest that hands-off approaches alone are superior to hands-on approaches in the long term, at least for pain intensity. Hands-off approaches in combination with hands-on approaches were also more effective than hands-on approaches for pain processing. However, substantial heterogeneity warrants a cautious interpretation of these results. More high-quality, randomized, controlled trials with homogenous data collection and larger sample sizes are needed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Journal of Psychosomatic Research 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
6.40%
发文量
314
审稿时长
6.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychosomatic Research is a multidisciplinary research journal covering all aspects of the relationships between psychology and medicine. The scope is broad and ranges from basic human biological and psychological research to evaluations of treatment and services. Papers will normally be concerned with illness or patients rather than studies of healthy populations. Studies concerning special populations, such as the elderly and children and adolescents, are welcome. In addition to peer-reviewed original papers, the journal publishes editorials, reviews, and other papers related to the journal''s aims.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信