ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2026
[Pain neuroscience education as an intervention to improve quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain : A scoping review of randomised controlled trials].
Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEducational strategies that improve understanding of pain can influence the behaviour of patients with chronic low back pain. One such strategy is pain neuroscience education (PNE), which is increasingly being used in chronic low back pain rehabilitation. However, little is known about its influence on psychosocial factors. Thus far, PNE has primarily been considered in terms of pain reduction and the alleviation of disability in the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain.
aimThe aim of this scoping review was to summarise the findings of randomised controlled trials on the quality-of-life outcomes of PNE interventions for this population.
methodsA systematic literature search was carried out in the Medline (PubMed), PEDro and Cochrane Library databases between 1 May and 15 May 2024, with an update on 3 June 2025. Based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for analysis of the quality-of-life outcome parameter. The revised version of the Cochrane tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to evaluate the studies' methodological quality. This scoping review's methodology followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
resultsIn all three included RCTs, the PNE intervention resulted in improved Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores. However, one RCT with a low risk of bias found no significant advantage to additional PNE treatment compared to physiotherapy alone. A second RCT raised concerns about the risk of bias; in this study, PNE treatment was superior to a conventional educational intervention. The third RCT, which had a high risk of bias, observed significant improvements in quality of life after both PNE treatment and myofascial induction therapy (MIT). However, the outcome was significantly better with MIT.
conclusionOverall, the evidence supporting the use of PNE to improve quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain is weak. Therefore, it remains unclear whether PNE can be used to achieve this goal. Further RCTs with subsequent systematic reviews are needed to make clear recommendations for practitioners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41817754What Socratic holds
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.