Cited by 390Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPain Mechanisms and Treatments

How to explain central sensitization to patients with ‘unexplained’chronic musculoskeletal pain: Practice guidelines

Open access
Nijs, Jo, Paul van Wilgen, C., Van Oosterwijck, Jessica, van Ittersum, Miriam, Meeus, Mira·2011·Manual Therapy

Abstract

Central sensitization provides an evidence-based explanation for many cases of 'unexplained' chronic musculoskeletal pain. Prior to commencing rehabilitation in such cases, it is crucial to change maladaptive illness perceptions, to alter maladaptive pain cognitions and to reconceptualise pain. This can be accomplished by patient education about central sensitization and its role in chronic pain, a strategy known as pain physiology education. Pain physiology education is indicated when: 1) the clinical picture is characterized and dominated by central sensitization; and 2) maladaptive illness perceptions are present. Both are prerequisites for commencing pain physiology education. Face-to-face sessions of pain physiology education, in conjunction with written educational material, are effective for changing pain cognitions and improving health status in patients with various chronic musculoskeletal pain disorders. These include patients with chronic low back pain, chronic whiplash, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. After biopsychosocial assessment pain physiology education comprises of a first face-to-face session explaining basic pain physiology and contrasting acute nociception versus chronic pain (Session 1). Written information about pain physiology should be provided as homework in between session 1 and 2. The second session can be used to correct misunderstandings, and to facilitate the transition from knowledge to adaptive pain coping during daily life. Pain physiology education is a continuous process initiated during the educational sessions and continued within both the active treatment and during the longer term rehabilitation program.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.math.2011.04.005

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adding a cognition-targeted active approach to pain science is considered critical in achieving larger long-term therapy effects, given that pain science as a stand-alone treatment only demonstrates small to medium effect sizes.

    “Indeed, adding a cognition-targeted active approach to pain science (e.g., progression to the next phase of education is preceded by an intermediate phase of imagery or work on cognitions that might hinder progression) is considered critical in achieving larger long-term therapy effects, given that pain science as a stand-alone treatment only demonstrates small to medium effect sizes [62,63].”

    From Best-evidence for the rehabilitation of chronic pain part 1: Pediatric pain (2019) · cites this paper as [63]

    Section 3.5 recommends continuing pain-physiology education into active rehabilitation and maintaining adaptive pain cognitions for long-term adherence. But the paper does not report that stand-alone pain science has small-to-medium effect sizes or establish that adding a cognition-targeted active approach produces larger long-term effects; Section 2 instead notes a short-term trial in which education alone outperformed education plus group exercise. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nijs, J., Paul van Wilgen, C., Van Oosterwijck, J., van Ittersum, M., & Meeus, M.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Corresponding author
Nijs, Jo
Venue
Manual Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
413-418
ISSN
1356-689X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2117902506
Cited by
390
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Manual Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
research council of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium (OZR1596)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
central sensitization, chronic musculoskeletal pain, patient education, illness perception, pain-related cognitions, chronic low back pain, whiplash injury, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, biopsychosocial assessment, pain coping, educational texts
MeSH terms
Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Central Nervous System Sensitization, Chronic Pain, Musculoskeletal Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review