Cited by 64Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyPain Management and Treatment

Development of a preoperative neuroscience educational program for patients with lumbar radiculopathy

Louw, Adriaan, Butler, David S., Diener, Ina, Puentedura, Emilio J.·2013·American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

Abstract

Postoperative rehabilitation for lumbar radiculopathy has shown little effect on reducing pain and disability. Current preoperative education programs with a focus on a biomedical approach feature procedural and anatomical information, and these too have shown little effect on postoperative outcomes. This report describes the development of an evidence-based educational program and booklet for patients undergoing lumbar surgery for radiculopathy using a recently conducted systematic review of neuroscience education for musculoskeletal pain. The previous systematic review produced evidence for neuroscience education as well as best-evidence synthesis of the content and delivery methods for neuroscience education for musculoskeletal pain. These evidence statements were extracted and developed into patient-centered messages and a booklet, which was then evaluated by peer and patient review. The neuroscience educational booklet and preoperative program convey key messages from the previous systematic review aimed at reducing fear and anxiety before surgery and assist in developing realistic expectations regarding pain after surgery. Key topics include the decision to undergo surgery, pain processing, peripheral nerve sensitization, effect of anxiety and stress on pain, surgery and the nervous system, and decreasing nerve sensitization. Feedback from the evaluations of the booklet and preoperative program was favorable from all review groups, suggesting that this proposed evidence-based neuroscience educational program may be ready for clinical application.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/phm.0b013e3182876aa4

Cites

36 of 36 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
Louw, A., Butler, D. S., Diener, I., & Puentedura, E. J.
Affiliations
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
Corresponding author
Puentedura, Emilio J.
Venue
American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Published
2013-05
Volume
92
Issue
5
Pages
446-452
ISSN
0894-9115 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151937250
Cited by
63
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
lumbar radiculopathy, preoperative patient education, neuroscience education, educational booklet, lumbar spine surgery, pain processing, stress and anxiety, surgical expectations, musculoskeletal pain, evidence-based education
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Lumbar Vertebrae, Male, Neurosciences, Pamphlets, Patient Education as Topic, Preoperative Care, Prognosis, Radiculopathy, Teaching Materials, Program Evaluation, Program Development, Diskectomy, Evidence-Based Medicine

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