-
Pain Oct 2023Interpatient variability is frequently observed among individuals with chronic low back pain (cLBP). This review aimed at identifying phenotypic domains and...
Interpatient variability is frequently observed among individuals with chronic low back pain (cLBP). This review aimed at identifying phenotypic domains and characteristics that account for interpatient variability in cLBP. We searched MEDLINE ALL (through Ovid), Embase Classic and EMBASE (through Ovid), Scopus, and CINAHL Complete (through EBSCOhost) databases. Studies that aimed to identify or predict cLBP different phenotypes were included. We excluded studies that focused on specific treatments. The methodological quality was assessed using an adaptation of the Downs and Black tool. Forty-three studies were included. Although the patient and pain-related characteristics used to identify phenotypes varied considerably across studies, the following were among the most identified phenotypic domains and characteristics that account for interpatient variability in cLBP: pain-related characteristics (including location, severity, qualities, and duration) and pain impact (including disability, sleep, and fatigue), psychological domains (including anxiety and depression), behavioral domains (including coping, somatization, fear avoidance, and catastrophizing), social domains (including employment and social support), and sensory profiling (including pain sensitivity and sensitization). Despite these findings, our review showed that the evidence on pain phenotyping still requires further investigation. The assessment of the methodological quality revealed several limitations. We recommend adopting a standard methodology to enhance the generalizability of the results and the implementation of a comprehensive and feasible assessment framework to facilitate personalized treatments in clinical settings.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Anxiety; Adaptation, Psychological; Fear; Catastrophization; Chronic Pain
PubMed: 37027149
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002911 -
PM & R : the Journal of Injury,... Sep 2023Several recent studies show a growing popularity of therapeutic climbing (TC) for patients with various conditions. This could be an attempt to fill the gap left by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Several recent studies show a growing popularity of therapeutic climbing (TC) for patients with various conditions. This could be an attempt to fill the gap left by traditional exercises that do not always address physical, mental, and social well-being. This review provides an overview of the physical, mental, and social effects and safety aspects of climbing for different indications.
LITERATURE SURVEY
A literature search was conducted on July 8, 2020 (update search August 26, 2021). We searched MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, and PubMed and bibliographies of included studies, and we conducted a manual search.
METHODOLOGY
Two independent reviewers evaluated the quality of the studies using appropriate Risk of Bias (RoB) tools, and the level of evidence for each domain was graded. Study characteristics and effectiveness data for TC were extracted and synthesized. Meta-analyses were conducted for the three dimensions (physical/mental/social health), using a random-effects model.
SYNTHESIS
A total of 112 publications were reviewed, and 22 full-text articles were assessed regarding the eligibility criteria, of which 18 trials involving 568 patients were included. TC is safe and positively affects physical (e.g., fitness, motor control, movement velocity, dexterity, strength), mental (e.g., depressiveness, somatisation, psychoticism, emotion regulation, body perception, self-esteem, fatigue), and social (e.g., social functioning, trust, communication, sense of responsibility) health for individuals with neurological, orthopedic, psychiatric, and pediatric ailments. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in the physical dimension favoring the climbing group. Improvements that were not statistically significant were found for the mental/social dimensions in the climbing group. The heterogeneity of data was moderate/high (social/mental dimension), and for the physical dimension, data were homogenous.
CONCLUSIONS
The studies investigating TC outline its positive effects in various patient groups. TC is a safe and effective treatment for improving physical/mental/social well-being. This review is based on the best available evidence; however, significant gaps remain in providing sufficiently strong evidence.
Topics: Humans; Child; Mental Health; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Fatigue
PubMed: 36031691
DOI: 10.1002/pmrj.12891