Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40794407›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2025

Pain Science Education, Stress Management, and Cognition-Targeted Exercise Therapy in Chronic Whiplash Disorders: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Anneleen Malfliet, Dorine Lenoir, Carlos Murillo, Eva Huysmans, Barbara Cagnie, Mira Meeus, Ward Willaert, Kelly Ickmans, Lieven Danneels, Jente Bontinck and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03239938 (Contemporary Pain Neuroscience Compared to Usual Care Evidence-based Physiotherapy Applied to Chronic Pain in Patients With Chronic Whiplash Associated Disorders), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03239938 nacompletednot on this map

Contemporary Pain Neuroscience Compared to Usual Care Evidence-based Physiotherapy Applied to Chronic Pain in Patients With Chronic Whiplash Associated Disorders: Can we Decrease Central Sensitization?

TypeinterventionalSponsorVrije Universiteit BrusselRan2017 to 2022Enrolled120ConditionsWhiplashArmsModern pain neuroscience approach, Usual care evidence-based physiotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Anneleen MalflietPain in Motion Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education & Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Dorine LenoirPain in Motion Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education & Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Carlos MurilloDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Eva HuysmansPain in Motion Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education & Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Barbara CagnieDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Mira MeeusPain in Motion International Research Consortium.
Ward WillaertPain in Motion Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education & Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Kelly IckmansPain in Motion Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education & Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Lieven DanneelsDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Jente BontinckPain in Motion International Research Consortium.
Jo NijsPain in Motion Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education & Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Iris CoppietersPain in Motion Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education & Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Chronic whiplash-associated disorders (cWAD) pose significant personal and societal burden, with limited evidence-based management options. Objective: To compare the efficacy of the modern pain neuroscience approach (MPNA) with usual care physiotherapy (UC) in cWAD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized clinical trial with long-term follow-up was organized at 2 university hospitals and 1 regional hospital in Belgium. Participants included patients with cWAD aged 18 to 65 years. Data collection occurred between August 2017 and July 2022. Final analyses were performed from June to August 2024. Interventions: Participants were randomized into MPNA or UC and received 18 sessions during 16 weeks. MPNA included pain neuroscience education, stress management, and cognition-targeted, time-contingent exercise therapy. UC included biomedically focused education and symptom-contingent exercise therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was pain-related disability (ie, Neck Disability Index) at the 6-month follow-up. Exploratory secondary outcomes included pain, pain cognitions, quality of life, physical functioning, and cost utility, with assessments until 12 months after the intervention. Results: A total of 120 participants (mean [SD] age, 41.4 [11.3] years; 89 [74.2%] women) were included. Mean neck pain-related disability decreased by 5.74 points (33.3%) in the MPNA group and 3.22 points (15.8%) in the UC group. There was no significant difference at 6 months (mean group difference [MGD], 2.38 [95% CI, -0.12 to 4.89] points; P = .15; Cohen d = 0.646), but significant differences favored MPNA immediately after treatment (MGD, 3.55 [95% CI, 1.12-6.26] points; P = .006; Cohen d = 0.999) and at 12-month follow-up (MGD, 3.54 [95% CI, 0.81-6.28] points; P = .02; Cohen d = 0.947). On an explorative basis, MPNA consistently outperformed UC in improving fear-avoidance behavior (Cohen d range, 0.906-1.112) and self-reported central sensitization symptoms (Cohen d range, 1.158-1.834) and was cost-effective, saving US $854.01 with an increase of 0.035 quality-adjusted life-years. No group differences were found for quality of life, (experimental) pain, and pain catastrophizing. However, 14 (23.3%) of the MPNA group was free of pain (ie, 0 or 1 of 10 in pain intensity score) directly after treatment vs only 3 (5.0%) in the UC group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, no significant differences were observed between groups for the primary outcome at 6 months. MPNA was more effective than UC in reducing neck pain-related disability immediately after treatment and at 12-month follow-up, with additional benefits in pain-related anxiety, self-reported central sensitization symptoms, and cost-effectiveness. Overall, MPNA shows promise for managing cWAD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03239938.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyPain ManagementPatient Education as TopicStress, PsychologicalWhiplash InjuriesAdolescentAdultAgedBelgiumChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeck PainPhysical Therapy Modalities

Identifiers

PMID40794407
PMCPMC12344539

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.