pain management
Research Papers
Showing 6 of 14Evaluation of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Improving Pain, Fear Avoidance, and Self-Efficacy in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND: Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is commonly adopted in pain management programs for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the benefits of CBT are still unclear. OBJECTIVES: This review investigated the effectiveness of CBT on pain, disability, fear avoidance, and self-efficacy in patients with CLBP. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were searched. RCTs examining the effects of CBT in adults with CLBP were included. The data about the outcome of pain, disability, fear avoidance, and self-efficacy were retained. Subgroup analysis about the effects of CBT on posttreatment was conducted according to CBT versus control groups (waiting list/usual care, active therapy) and concurrent CBT versus CBT alone. A random-effects model was used, and statistical heterogeneity was explored. RESULTS: 22 articles were included. The results indicated that CBT was superior to other therapies in improving disability (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.17, P < 0.05), pain (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.06, P < 0.05), fear avoidance (SMD -1.24, 95% CI -2.25 to -0.23, P < 0.05), and self-efficacy (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.40, P < 0.05) after intervention. No different effect was observed between CBT and other therapies in all the follow-up terms. Subgroup analysis suggested that CBT in conjunction with other interventions was in favor of other interventions alone to reduce pain and disability (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: CBT is beneficial in patients with CLBP for improving pain, disability, fear avoidance, and self-efficacy in CLBP patients. Further study is recommended to investigate the long-term benefits of CBT. This meta-analysis is registered with Prospero (registration number CRD42021224837).
View Full Paper →New treatment strategy for chronic low back pain with alpha wave neurofeedback
The lifetime prevalence of low back pain is 83%. Since there is a lack of evidence for therapeutic effect by cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or physical therapy (PT), it is necessary to develop objective physiological indexes and effective treatments. We conducted a prospective longitudinal study to evaluate the treatment effects of CBT, PT, and neurofeedback training (NFT) during alpha wave NFT. The early-chronic cases within 1 year and late-chronic cases over 1 year after the diagnosis of chronic low back pain were classified into six groups: Controls, CBTs, PTs, NFTs, CBT-NFTs, PT-NFTs. We evaluated the difference in EEG, psychosocial factors, scores of low back pain before/after the intervention. Therapeutic effect was clearly more effective in the early-chronic cases. We found that the intensity of alpha waves increased significantly after therapeutic intervention in the NFT groups, but did not have the main effect of reducing low back pain; the interaction between CBT and NFT reduced low back pain. Factors that enhance therapeutic effect are early intervention, increased alpha waves, and self-efficacy due to parallel implementation of CBT/PT and NFT. A treatment protocol in which alpha wave neurofeedback training is subsidiarily used with CBT or PT should be developed in the future.
View Full Paper →Mobile Neurofeedback for Pain Management in Veterans with TBI and PTSD
OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain is common in military veterans with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Neurofeedback, or electroencephalograph (EEG) biofeedback, has been associated with lower pain but requires frequent travel to a clinic. The current study examined feasibility and explored effectiveness of neurofeedback delivered with a portable EEG headset linked to an application on a mobile device. DESIGN: Open-label, single-arm clinical trial. SETTING: Home, outside of clinic. SUBJECTS: N = 41 veterans with chronic pain, TBI, and PTSD. METHOD: Veterans were instructed to perform "mobile neurofeedback" on their own for three months. Clinical research staff conducted two home visits and two phone calls to provide technical assistance and troubleshoot difficulties. RESULTS: N = 36 veterans returned for follow-up at three months (88% retention). During this time, subjects completed a mean of 33.09 neurofeedback sessions (10 minutes each). Analyses revealed that veterans reported lower pain intensity, pain interference, depression, PTSD symptoms, anger, sleep disturbance, and suicidal ideation after the three-month intervention compared with baseline. Comparing pain ratings before and after individual neurofeedback sessions, veterans reported reduced pain intensity 67% of the time immediately following mobile neurofeedback. There were no serious adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study found that veterans with chronic pain, TBI, and PTSD were able to use neurofeedback with mobile devices independently after modest training and support. While a double-blind randomized controlled trial is needed for confirmation, the results show promise of a portable, technology-based neuromodulatory approach for pain management with minimal side effects.
View Full Paper →Effects of neurofeedback in the management of chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Neurofeedback (NFB) provides real-time feedback about neurophysiological signals to patients, thereby encouraging modulation of pain-associated brain activity. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of NFB in alleviating pain and pain-associated symptoms in chronic pain patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, PUBMED, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases were searched using the strategy: ("Neurofeedback" OR "EEG Biofeedback" OR "fMRI Biofeedback") AND ("Pain" or "Chronic Pain"). Clinical trials reporting changes in pain following electroencephalogram (EEG) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) NFB in chronic pain patients were included. Only Randomized-controlled trials (RCT), non-randomized controlled trials (NRCT) and case series were included. Effect size was pooled for all RCTs in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included. Reduction in pain following NFB was reported by one high-quality RCT, five of six low-quality RCT or NRCT and 13 of 14 case-series. Pain reduction reported by studies ranged from 6% to 82%, with 10 studies reporting a clinically significant reduction in pain of >30%. The overall effect size was medium (cohen's d -0.76, 95% confidence interval -1.31 to -0.20). Studies were highly heterogeneous (Q [df = 5] = 18.46, p = .002, I2 = 73%). Improvements in depression, anxiety, fatigue and sleep were also seen in some studies. Common side-effects included headache, nausea and drowsiness. These generally did not lead to withdrawal of therapy except in one study. CONCLUSIONS: Neurofeedback is a safe and effective therapy with promising but largely low-quality evidence supporting its use in chronic pain. Further high-quality trials comparing different protocols is warranted to determine the most efficacious way to deliver NFB. SIGNIFICANCE: Neurofeedback is a novel neuromodulatory approach which can be used to reduce the severity of pain and pain-associated symptoms such as sleep disturbances, mood disturbances, fatigue and anxiety in a number of chronic pain conditions. It has a potential to provide integrative non-pharmacological management for chronic pain patients with pain refractory to pharmacological agents with high side-effect profiles. Further high-quality double-blinded randomized sham-controlled trials are needed in order to fully explore the potential of this therapy.
View Full Paper →Pain Control by Co-adaptive Learning in a Brain-Machine Interface
Innovation in the field of brain-machine interfacing offers a new approach to managing human pain. In principle, it should be possible to use brain activity to directly control a therapeutic intervention in an interactive, closed-loop manner. But this raises the question as to whether the brain activity changes as a function of this interaction. Here, we used real-time decoded functional MRI responses from the insula cortex as input into a closed-loop control system aimed at reducing pain and looked for co-adaptive neural and behavioral changes. As subjects engaged in active cognitive strategies orientated toward the control system, such as trying to enhance their brain activity, pain encoding in the insula was paradoxically degraded. From a mechanistic perspective, we found that cognitive engagement was accompanied by activation of the endogenous pain modulation system, manifested by the attentional modulation of pain ratings and enhanced pain responses in pregenual anterior cingulate cortex and periaqueductal gray. Further behavioral evidence of endogenous modulation was confirmed in a second experiment using an EEG-based closed-loop system. Overall, the results show that implementing brain-machine control systems for pain induces a parallel set of co-adaptive changes in the brain, and this can interfere with the brain signals and behavior under control. More generally, this illustrates a fundamental challenge of brain decoding applications-that the brain inherently adapts to being decoded, especially as a result of cognitive processes related to learning and cooperation. Understanding the nature of these co-adaptive processes informs strategies to mitigate or exploit them.
View Full Paper →Mixed exercise training for adults with fibromyalgia
BACKGROUND: Exercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review is one of a series of reviews about exercise training for fibromyalgia that will replace the review titled "Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome", which was first published in 2002. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of mixed exercise training protocols that include two or more types of exercise (aerobic, resistance, flexibility) for adults with fibromyalgia against control (treatment as usual, wait list control), non exercise (e.g. biofeedback), or other exercise (e.g. mixed versus flexibility) interventions.Specific comparisons involving mixed exercise versus other exercises (e.g. resistance, aquatic, aerobic, flexibility, and whole body vibration exercises) were not assessed. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Thesis and Dissertations Abstracts, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Physiotherapy Evidence Databese (PEDro), Current Controlled Trials (to 2013), WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 2017, unrestricted by language, to identify all potentially relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia that compared mixed exercise interventions with other or no exercise interventions. Major outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQL), pain, stiffness, fatigue, physical function, withdrawals, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the quality of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs (2088 participants; 98% female; average age 51 years) that compared mixed exercise interventions (including at least two of the following: aerobic or cardiorespiratory, resistance or muscle strengthening exercise, and flexibility exercise) versus control (e.g. wait list), non-exercise (e.g. biofeedback), and other exercise interventions. Design flaws across studies led to selection, performance, detection, and selective reporting biases. We prioritised the findings of mixed exercise compared to control and present them fully here.Twenty-one trials (1253 participants) provided moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes but stiffness (low quality). With the exception of withdrawals and adverse events, major outcome measures were self-reported and expressed on a 0 to 100 scale (lower values are best, negative mean differences (MDs) indicate improvement; we used a clinically important difference between groups of 15% relative difference). Results for mixed exercise versus control show that mean HRQL was 56 and 49 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (13 studies; 610 participants) with absolute improvement of 7% (3% better to 11% better) and relative improvement of 12% (6% better to 18% better). Mean pain was 58.6 and 53 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (15 studies; 832 participants) with absolute improvement of 5% (1% better to 9% better) and relative improvement of 9% (3% better to 15% better). Mean fatigue was 72 and 59 points in the control and exercise groups, respectively (1 study; 493 participants) with absolute improvement of 13% (8% better to 18% better) and relative improvement of 18% (11% better to 24% better). Mean stiffness was 68 and 61 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (5 studies; 261 participants) with absolute improvement of 7% (1% better to 12% better) and relative improvement of 9% (1% better to 17% better). Mean physical function was 49 and 38 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (9 studies; 477 participants) with absolute improvement of 11% (7% better to 15% better) and relative improvement of 22% (14% better to 30% better). Pooled analysis resulted in a moderate-quality risk ratio for all-cause withdrawals with similar rates across groups (11 per 100 and 12 per 100 in the control and intervention groups, respectively) (19 studies; 1065 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.51) with an absolute change of 1% (3% fewer to 5% more) and a relative change of 11% (28% fewer to 47% more). Across all 21 studies, no injuries or other adverse events were reported; however some participants experienced increased fibromyalgia symptoms (pain, soreness, or tiredness) during or after exercise. However due to low event rates, we are uncertain of the precise risks with exercise. Mixed exercise may improve HRQL and physical function and may decrease pain and fatigue; all-cause withdrawal was similar across groups, and mixed exercises may slightly reduce stiffness. For fatigue, physical function, HRQL, and stiffness, we cannot rule in or out a clinically relevant change, as the confidence intervals include both clinically important and unimportant effects.We found very low-quality evidence on long-term effects. In eight trials, HRQL, fatigue, and physical function improvement persisted at 6 to 52 or more weeks post intervention but improvements in stiffness and pain did not persist. Withdrawals and adverse events were not measured.It is uncertain whether mixed versus other non-exercise or other exercise interventions improve HRQL and physical function or decrease symptoms because the quality of evidence was very low. The interventions were heterogeneous, and results were often based on small single studies. Adverse events with these interventions were not measured, and thus uncertainty surrounds the risk of adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to control, moderate-quality evidence indicates that mixed exercise probably improves HRQL, physical function, and fatigue, but this improvement may be small and clinically unimportant for some participants; physical function shows improvement in all participants. Withdrawal was similar across groups. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed exercise may slightly improve stiffness. Very low-quality evidence indicates that we are 'uncertain' whether the long-term effects of mixed exercise are maintained for all outcomes; all-cause withdrawals and adverse events were not measured. Compared to other exercise or non-exercise interventions, we are uncertain about the effects of mixed exercise because we found only very low-quality evidence obtained from small, very heterogeneous trials. Although mixed exercise appears to be well tolerated (similar withdrawal rates across groups), evidence on adverse events is scarce, so we are uncertain about its safety. We downgraded the evidence from these trials due to imprecision (small trials), selection bias (e.g. allocation), blinding of participants and care providers or outcome assessors, and selective reporting.
View Full Paper →Ready to Optimize Your Brain?
Schedule a free consultation to discuss pain management and how neurofeedback training can help
Or call us directly at 855-88-BRAIN
View Programs & Pricing →