Cited by 537Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPain Mechanisms and Treatments

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Intensive Neurophysiology Education in Chronic Low Back Pain

Moseley, G. Lorimer, Nicholas, Michael K., Hodges, Paul W.·2004·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Cognitive-behavioral pain management programs typically achieve improvements in pain cognitions, disability, and physical performance. However, it is not known whether the neurophysiology education component of such programs contributes to these outcomes. In chronic low back pain patients, we investigated the effect of neurophysiology education on cognitions, disability, and physical performance. METHODS: This study was a blinded randomized controlled trial. Individual education sessions on neurophysiology of pain (experimental group) and back anatomy and physiology (control group) were conducted by trained physical therapist educators. Cognitions were evaluated using the Survey of Pain Attitudes (revised) (SOPA(R)), and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Behavioral measures included the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and 3 physical performance tasks; (1) straight leg raise (SLR), (2) forward bending range, and (3) an abdominal "drawing-in" task, which provides a measure of voluntary activation of the deep abdominal muscles. Methodological checks evaluated non-specific effects of intervention. RESULTS: There was a significant treatment effect on the SOPA(R), PCS, SLR, and forward bending. There was a statistically significant effect on RMDQ; however, the size of this effect was small and probably not clinically meaningful. DISCUSSION: Education about pain neurophysiology changes pain cognitions and physical performance but is insufficient by itself to obtain a change in perceived disability. The results suggest that pain neurophysiology education, but not back school type education, should be included in a wider pain management approach.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00002508-200409000-00007

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moseley, G. L., Nicholas, M. K., & Hodges, P. W.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Moseley, G. Lorimer
  • Hodges, Paul W.
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2004
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
324-330
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2078673653
Cited by
537
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
FWCI
2.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
neurophysiology education, chronic low back pain, pain-related cognitions, pain catastrophizing, pain attitudes, disability, physical performance, cognitive-behavioral pain management, physiotherapy education
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Chronic Disease, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neurophysiology, Pain Measurement, Patient Education as Topic, Psychomotor Performance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Low Back 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