Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

The effectiveness of a combined exercise and psychological treatment programme on measures of nervous system sensitisation in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 140 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) offers information regarding underlying mechanisms contributing to chronic pain (CP) in adults with musculoskeletal disorders. This review examined the use of QST measures in adults with CP following participation in a combined exercise and psychological intervention.

Methods

The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Five databases were searched from inception to November 2022. All study designs which evaluated the effects of a combined exercise and psychological treatment on measures of nervous system sensitivity in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain were included.

Results

A total of 13 studies met the selection criteria, 10 of which were included in a meta-analysis. Local pressure pain thresholds were the most frequently used measure (n = 12 studies). Meta-analysis revealed statistically significantly improvements in favour of the combined exercise and psychological intervention group, compared to a control group, for local pressure pain threshold measures [SMD = 0.44, 95% CI 0.08–0.81, I2 = 84%], pain intensity scores [SMD=-0.89, 95% CI -1.66- -0.13, I2 = 94%] and the Central Sensitisation Inventory [SMD=-0.69, 95% CI -1.37- -0.02, I2 = 87%]. There were no significant differences found between groups for remote pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation or conditioned pain modulation.

Conclusions

The results suggest that a combined exercise and psychological intervention may lead to greater improvements in local pressure pain threshold, pain intensity and Central Sensitisation Inventory scores when compared to a control intervention in adults with CP, however these findings must be interpreted with caution as a large degree of heterogeneity was present in these results (I2: 84–94%). Further large, longitudinal studies are required using standardised QST measurement procedures and patient reported outcome measures to explore changes in nervous system sensitisation.

Trial registration

This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, ID Number CRD42022380464.

Peer Review reports

Background

Chronic pain (CP) is postulated to be augmented by changes in modulation of sensory inputs by the peripheral and central nervous system [1,2,3,4]. It has been suggested that evaluation of different pain mechanisms may help to individualise and tailor pain management strategies, targeting individuals specific pain mechanisms [5].

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) may be useful for assessing pathology in pain processing. QST assessments are psychophysical methods of testing the perception of touch, vibration, proprioception, pinprick/blunt pressure sensitivity or sensitivity to cold or heat stimuli using stimuli applied under standardised testing protocols, and the participants’ self-reported sensory experience is quantified [6]. QST can offer information about the potential underlying mechanisms contributing to pain in musculoskeletal disorders and can explore mechanisms responsible for the development or maintenance of local and widespread pain [7, 8]. QST can be subdivided into static and dynamic measures [9, 10]. Static QST, for example pressure pain thresholds (PPT), typically refers to the measurement of the threshold of pain that primarily reflects states of the peripheral nervous system [9]. PPTs can be measured local to the primary pain area or at a remote site. PPTs measured at remote sites while also measuring static mechanical allodynia, when decreased are thought to reflect mechanisms of central sensitisation (CS) [11]. Dynamic QST measure mechanisms of pain processing in the central nervous system [9]. For example, conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is thought to be a measure of the brain’s capacity for activating endogenous analgesia, via the descending inhibitory tracts in the central nervous system [12] and temporal summation (TS) measures the state of hyperactivity in the dorsal horn of the pain facilitation pathways.

Information regarding individuals possible underlying pain mechanisms can also be inferred using a number of patient reported outcome measures (e.g. Pain-Detect for neuropathic pain or Central Sensitisation Inventory (CSI) for CS).

The biopsychosocial treatment model which acknowledges and addresses the biological, psychological and social contributions to CP and disability is currently seen as the most efficacious approach to the management of CP [13]. Psychological treatments designed to target potential pain mechanisms contributing to CP [14] have been utilised in pain treatment programmes [15]. In addition, physical activity is considered important for the promotion of biopsychosocial health [16] and is an important health management and disease prevention strategy for adults with CP, recommended for its neuromodulatory benefits, and is suggested for a variety of CP conditions such as arthritis [17, 18], fibromyalgia [19], and dysmenorrhoea [20]. A number of QST studies investigating the effects of exercise in populations of pain free adults have demonstrated exercise has an effect on a number of measures of nervous system sensitivity; showing lower central excitability (measured using TS), increased pain thresholds (PPT) and enhanced CPM [21,22,23]. More variable results have been found in QST measures following exercise in clinical populations. Oosterwijck and colleagues [24] examined 22 women with chronic whiplash associated disorder and 22 healthy controls who performed a self-paced exercise test on a cycle ergometer and found PPT decreased following submaximal exercise in the individuals with whiplash and increased in healthy subjects. Furthermore, Meeus and colleagues [25] examined the change in mean PPT in response to exercise in 26 patients with chronic fatigue syndrome with CP, 21 patients with chronic low back pain and 31 healthy subjects. After submaximal aerobic exercise, mean pain thresholds decreased in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, and increased in the chronic low back pain and healthy subjects.

This review aims to examine the use of QST as measures of pain sensitisation in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain who have taken part in a combined exercise and psychological intervention. The review will further investigate changes in QST measures in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain following participation in interventions combining exercise and psychological interventions. A greater understanding of the role of QST in measuring change following participation in these programmes may help to quantify the benefits of this type of pain management programme.

Methods

Study design and registration

The systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews [26] and the results are reported according to the guidelines included in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [27]. The systematic review was registered on the Prospero database (CRD42022380464 ). A protocol was not published for the current review.

Literature search and identification of studies

To identify the relevant literature, electronic searches were conducted in the following databases: Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), SportsDiscus (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier) and Cinahl (EBSCO) from their inception to 14th Nov 2022. A comprehensive search strategy was designed with the assistance of an experienced medical librarian. The search strategy was adjusted to account for differences in indexing across databases and developed using medical subject headings (MeSH) where available. The search strategy (Supplementary Material; S1) included relevant keywords which encompass terms for the three domains of interest: chronic pain, nervous system sensitization and combined exercise and psychological treatment. The focus of the review was chronic musculoskeletal pain as defined by ICD 11 for ‘Chronic Primary Musculoskeletal Pain’ and ‘Chronic Secondary Musculoskeletal Pain’. As such the review did not include TMJ disorders or chronic headache specifically. References lists of identified systematic studies were also screened. Articles obtained following the systematic search were exported and saved into an online review management platform (Rayyan) where duplicates were removed. Following removal of duplicate papers, studies titles and abstracts were screened independently for inclusion and exclusion criteria by two reviewers (OD and CD). Full texts of the remaining studies were reviewed independently by the two reviewers for their eligibility. Any disagreements arising between the reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus and the assistance of a third reviewer was not required.

Eligibility criteria

Only articles published as full text in the English language in peer-reviewed journals were included. Studies including adults (≥18 years) with chronic musculoskeletal pain (defined as pain persisting for ≥12 weeks) were eligible. Studies were included which investigated changes in nervous system sensitisation following interventions that included a combined exercise and psychological intervention. Studies had to be of an experimental design with an intervention and comparison control group. Studies were excluded if participants in both the intervention and control groups had pain due to serious pathologies; including fractures, neoplasm, infection, or specific conditions; rheumatoid arthritis, pregnancy, postpartum pain, or fibromyalgia. Participants who had undergone a surgical intervention in the three months prior to study participation were also excluded. Studies were excluded if surgical, injection, electro-acupuncture or oral analgesic treatments were used in the intervention or control group. The main nervous system sensitisation outcomes of interest were QST measures as well as patient reported outcome measures (questionnaires which primarily focused on measurement of nervous system sensitization).

In this review, the term QST included both static and dynamic measures of nervous system sensitization (e.g. pressure pain threshold (PPT), temporal summation (TS), conditioned pain modulation (CPM) pain tolerance threshold, thermal threshold). Questionnaires investigating nervous system sensitization were also included i.e. the CSI. All study designs were included if they utilized these measures pre and post a combined exercise and psychological treatment intervention in adults with CP. Exercise was defined as ‘a series of specific movements with the aim of training or developing the body by a routine practice or as physical training to promote good physical health’ [28]. An exercise intervention encompasses a heterogeneous set of treatments prescribed by a health professional that include conducting specific activities, postures and/or movements. The psychological intervention for the experimental group included treatment with a definable psychotherapeutic content (e.g., Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Pain Neuroscience Education, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and excluded other types of general education) delivered by a health professional.

Evaluation of methodological quality

The methodological quality of each of the randomised control trials (RCT) in the review were assessed using the PEDro scale [29] scored by two independent reviewers. The PEDro scale’s score depends on the presence or absence of the 11 criteria related to randomization, blinding, and data treatment. Studies are rated from 0 to 3 (poor quality), 4–5 (fair quality), 6–8 (good quality) and 9–11 (excellent quality) [30, 31]. The modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) [32] was used for other study designs e.g., case-control and cross-sectional studies. The NOS assigns up to a maximum of eight points for the least risk of bias in three domains: (1) selection of study groups (four points); (2) comparability of groups (one point); and (3) ascertainment of exposure and outcomes (three points). Studies are rated from 0 to 9, with those studies rating 0–2 (poor quality), 3–5 (fair quality), 6–9 (good/high quality) [33]. Survey questions were developed based on the NOS questions covering all three domains so that authors could provide detailed information about their studies. Studies rated as ‘fair quality’ or above were included in the review.

Data extraction

Data from each study were extracted by two reviewers (O.D. and C.D.) independently using a customized data extraction tool in the form of an MS Excel spreadsheet. The following data were extracted: (1) study characteristics: number of participants, sex, age, duration of pain symptoms, area of pain, study inclusion criteria; (2) characteristics of the interventions for both exercise and psychological intervention: type of intervention (group vs. individual), dosage, and description of content of interventions; (3) outcome measures: type of QST measure; data per group/time-point, description of QST area, type of patient reported outcome measure; data per group/time-point, and (4) summary of findings. Studies with similar outcome measures allowed a meta-analysis to be performed. QST data were extracted in the unit presented in each paper (kPA, kg/cm2). All scores were then converted to kg/cm2 for analysis using a converter application, applying the following formula: 1 kg-force/Square Centimeter (kg/cm2) = 98.0665 Kilopascal (kPa). Completed data collection forms including data used in the meta-analysis are available upon request from the lead researcher (O.D.).

Data analysis

The QST measures were sub-classified as ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’, with static modalities including PPTs, and dynamic modalities including CPM and TS. PPT measures were divided into local and remote measures, with local measures defined as those acquired from sites identified as the primary area of pain in the studied population and remote measures were defined as those acquired from sites which were not local to the primary area of pain [34]. In the event that studies performed QST at multiple local and remote sites, data were pooled according to local and remote site for meta-analysis, as recommended [35].

Pain intensity was extracted where available from the included studies. If more than one measure of pain intensity was used in a study, then the one considered to be the primary outcome or the one considered most similar to outcome measures used in other included studies was chosen for inclusion in the meta-analysis (e.g., Numerical Rating Scale and Visual Analog Scale were considered similar outcome measures as they both require the rating on an 11-point severity scale).

Group means, standard deviations (SD), and sample sizes were extracted and analysed for each follow-up timepoint. If outcomes were incompletely reported or unclear, authors were contacted via e-mail. Where data were presented in graph format only the authors were contacted via e-mail with a request to provide the raw data. In cases where authors were uncontactable, a web-based tool was used to extract the data from the graphs (https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/). A number of studies reported median and interquartile range scores. Under the assumption of normality of the underlying distribution, the median was substituted for the mean and the width of the interquartile range was used as an approximation of 1.35 times the SD [36]. If the SD was not given, it was calculated from the SE or confidence intervals when these were available. If no estimate was possible, the data were not used in the meta-analysis [36]. Where data were presented as pre-intervention mean (SD) and mean (SD) change with intervention only, the pre intervention SD was utilised for the post-intervention mean based on Cochrane guidelines [36].

Meta-analyses of study outcomes were performed where possible using RevMan (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) using a random effects model. The standard mean difference (SMD) was calculated using the scores at post-intervention for each group. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by calculating I2, which represents the percentage of total variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance [37, 38]. An I2 value of 25% represents a small, 50% a moderate, and 75% a large degree of heterogeneity [37]. Pooled findings for each outcome were reported as SMD and 95% CI. The SMD is more generalisable than the mean difference (MD), and has similar statistical power as the MD [39]. Effect size was interpreted using Cohen’s criteria for pooled estimates [40]. Cohen described 0.2 as small, 0.5 as moderate, and 0.8 as large effect sizes. Statistical significance was set at a level of 0.05.

Results

Study selection

The trial identification process is summarized in Fig. 1. The electronic database search yielded 5308 records. After removal of duplicates, 3725 were screened independently by two reviewers based on title and abstracts. A further 3707 records were excluded, leaving 18 to be screened by full text. Of these, five studies did not fit the eligibility criteria for this review. The reasons for exclusion were; the subjects included in the study were not ≥18 years old, the article reviewed was an abstract from a previously included paper, the study had no appropriate psychological intervention and the studies did not have an appropriate control group comparison. A final total of 13 records met the selection criteria [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. A number of study designs were identified in the included studies; randomised controlled trials (n = 10) [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50], case control study (n = 1) [53], non-randomised controlled trial (n = 1) [52], and prospective cohort study (n = 1) [51].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Legend: n, number of participants; ≥ greater than or equal to

Full size image

Nervous system sensitisation measurement techniques

A description of the included studies is provided in Table 1. Twelve trials studied the effects of a combined exercise and psychological intervention on measures of local PPT [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52] and 9 studied the effect of combined interventions on measures of remote PPT [41, 43, 45, 46, 48,49,50,51,52]. The study populations where PPT was performed included; chronic low back pain [41, 42, 46, 48, 52, 53], chronic neck pain [47, 49, 51], chronic spinal pain [44], knee osteoarthritis [45, 50] and chronic Achilles tendinopathy [43]. Holm et al. [45] measured PPT using a computer-controlled cuff algometer. The remaining studies measured PPT using a handheld pressure algometer device.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Four trials studied the effect of a combined exercise and psychological intervention on CPM [43, 45, 46, 51]. The study populations in which CPM was performed were chronic low back pain [46], chronic neck pain [51], knee osteoarthritis [45] and chronic Achilles tendinopathy [43]. Two studies utilised cuff inflation on the contralateral limb as the conditioning stimulus [45, 51] and two studies used cold water bath immersion of the contralateral limb as the conditioning stimulus [43, 46].

Three trials studied the effect of a combined exercise and psychological intervention on TS measures [43,44,45] in the following study populations; knee osteoarthritis [45], chronic neck pain [51] and chronic Achilles tendinopathy [43]. Georgopoulos et al. [51] reported measuring TS using of a single punctate stimulus applied to the dominant forearm using a retractable blunt needle, followed by 10 repetitive stimuli at a rate of 1/s to the forearm. Holm et al. [45] measured TS by utilising an inflating cuff on the index leg. The participant was then subjected to ten short-lasting pressure stimuli (1-s each), using the previously recorded pain tolerance threshold cuff pressure, with 1-s breaks between each stimuli. The TS technique was not described in detail in the study by Chimenti et al. [43]

The CSI scores were recorded in three of the included trials [41, 44, 46] in participants with chronic low back pain [41, 44, 46].

A number of additional QST measures were recorded in the following studies; Polaski et al. [48] measured cutaneous mechanical sensitivity, cutaneous mechanical pain, constant heat pain intensity, constant heat pain unpleasantness, constant pressure pain intensity, constant pressure pain unpleasantness) and Holm et al. [45] measured pain tolerance threshold.

Interventions

RCT data were included in the meta-analysis (n = 10 studies) [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] when the trial included an intervention group consisting of a combined exercise and psychological intervention and a comparator group. The psychological elements included in the intervention groups included cognitive functional therapy [53], pain neuroscience education [41, 43, 44, 46, 47], a pain education video [52], individualised psychological support [42], psychologically informed pain education [45, 49, 50], guided meditation [48], CBT [51] and multimodal psychological disability management [53]. The exercise components of the interventions included; exercise of personal preference [53], multimodal home exercise programme including motor control exercises, stretching and aerobic exercise [41], group exercise including strength exercises, motor control and flexibility [52], one-to-one time-contingent exercise programme [46], home exercises featuring ‘five home exercises in five minutes’ [42], supervised exercise programme including neck flexor and extensor function, balance and oculomotor exercise, shoulder girdle exercise [49], group therapeutic exercise [44], neuromuscular exercise [45, 50], treadmill walking [48], progressive heel raise protocol [43] and deep neck flexor and extensor exercise [47]. The time-frame of the treatment intervention period also varied; from four weeks [47, 48], six weeks [44], 12 weeks [43, 46, 50], 16 weeks [41, 49] to approximately 18 weeks [42]. Eight of the combined interventions included in this review were delivered by physiotherapists [41,42,43,44,45, 49, 51, 53]. In addition, a clinical psychologist [48], nurse [49] and an unspecified MDT member [51] were also described as intervention providers. In two of the included studies, the profession of the intervention provider was not specified [46, 52].

Studies compared the experimental group to; a waiting list control [42], exercise only [41, 47], pain education only [49], ‘usual physiotherapy’ [44], a leaflet with general advice [50], listening to an audio-book followed by 30 min resting [48], combined pathoanatomical education and exercise [43], and traditional back school with a biomedical approach combined with a pain contingent exercise programme [46]. One RCT [52] was not included in the meta-analysis as both the experimental group and the comparator group included a combined exercise and psychological intervention.

Methodological quality

The 10 RCTs were assessed using the PEDRO scale (Table 2). The scores ranged from four to 10 out of a total possible score of 11. The most common biases present was failure to blind the therapist in all 10 included studies and failure to blind the participants in seven out of ten studies. The methodological quality of the remaining three studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (Tables 3 and 4). This scale has three main criteria; the selection of the study groups, the comparability of the study groups, and the ascertainment of the outcome [32]. The total scores of the included studies ranged from five to seven out of a possible maximum of nine.

Table 2 Methodological quality of included randomised controlled trials (PEDro scale)
Full size table
Table 3 Quality of included cohort studies (Newcastle Ottawa Scale NOS)
Full size table
Table 4 Quality of included case-control studies (Newcastle Ottawa Scale NOS)
Full size table

Meta-analysis

Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] investigating changes in static QST measures (PPT local, PPT remote), dynamic QST measures (CPM, TS), pain severity and CSI scores.

PPT local

In terms of local PPT scores, five individual studies [41, 42, 44, 46, 49] showed significant increases in local PPT scores in a combined exercise and psychological intervention group compared to a control group. Four of these studies investigated low back pain [41, 42] or spinal pain [46] and one investigated cervical pain [49]. A further four studies, investigating knee [50], low back [48], Achilles tendon [43] and neck [47] pain, showed no between group differences post intervention.

Meta-analysis of all nine trials (n = 839 participants) post-intervention showed significantly higher PPT scores in favour of the exercise and psychological intervention group, with small effect sizes [SMD = 0.44; 95% CI 0.08–0.81; P = 0.02]. The results appear to have high levels of heterogeneity I2 = 84%. Visual analysis of the funnel plot demonstrated relative funnel plot symmetry suggesting that there was no significant publication bias (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Effect of combined exercise and psychological intervention on post intervention PPT local scores

Legend:

Forest plot for post-intervention analysis comparing combined exercise and psychological intervention with control group for local PPT scores (left)

Funnel plot demonstrating publication bias (right)

Full size image

Subgroup analysis (PPT local) according to area of pain

A sub-group analysis of local PPT scores was carried where two or more studies were available, grouping studies according to the primary area of CP of the study participants [41, 42, 46,47,48,49]. The areas of CP included were all spinal pain; lumbar spine (n = 4 studies) and cervical spine (n = 2 studies). For participants with lumbar spine pain, where PPT scores were measured locally in the lumbar spine, the analysis revealed a significantly higher local PPT score in favour of the exercise and psychological intervention group with a large effect size [SMD = 0.80; 95% CI 0.27–1.33; P = 0.006] with the results appearing to have high levels of heterogeneity; I2 = 76% (Fig. 3). The participants in the sub-group analysis investigating the lumbar spine presented with non-specific chronic low back pain for > 3 months [42, 46] or > 6 months [41, 48]. There were no significant between group differences found in local PPT scores when the primary area of pain was the cervical spine (n = 2), with a low effect size [SMD=-0.03; 95% CI 0.28 − 0.22; P = 0.79] and the results showing low levels of heterogeneity; I2 = 0%.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Subgroup analysis of effect of combined exercise and psychological intervention on post intervention PPT local scores

Legend:

Forest plot for post-intervention analysis comparing combined exercise and psychological intervention with control group for local PPT scores in a subgroup of patients with chronic lumbar and cervical pain

Full size image

PPT remote

In terms of remote PPT scores, one study [49] showed a significant increase in remote PPT scores in the exercise plus psychological intervention group compared to control group post intervention. This study [49] investigated remote PPTs scores in individuals with cervical pain. A further five studies [41, 43, 46, 48, 50] showed no between group differences post intervention. In these five studies, remote PPT scores were investigated in individuals with a number of different pain areas; knee [50], low back [41, 46, 48] and Achilles tendon [43].

Meta-analysis of six trials [41, 43, 46, 48,49,50] (n = 543 participants) revealed no significant between group differences in remote PPT scores [SMD = 0.04; 95% CI -0.17-0.24; P = 0.73]. The results appear to have low levels of heterogeneity; I2 = 27% (Fig. 4). Visual analysis of the funnel plot demonstrated relative funnel plot symmetry suggesting that there was no significant publication bias.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Effect of combined exercise and psychological intervention on post intervention PPT remote scores

Legend:

Forest plot for post-intervention analysis comparing combined exercise and psychological intervention with control group for remote PPT scores (left)

Funnel plot demonstrating publication bias (right)

Full size image

Conditioned pain modulation

Two studies [43, 46] investigated changes in CPM following a psychological and exercise intervention, in individuals with Achilles tendinopathy [43] and low back pain [46]. Individually neither study found significant between group differences between experimental and control groups post intervention. Meta-analysis of these two trials (n = 185 participants) post-intervention revealed significantly higher CPM scores in favour of the control group with a moderate effect size [SMD = 0.67; 95% CI -0.77-2.11; P = 0.36]. The results have high levels of heterogeneity I2 = 95% (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Effect of combined exercise and psychological intervention on post intervention CPM scores

Legend:

Forest plot for post-intervention analysis comparing combined exercise and psychological intervention with control group for CPM scores

Full size image

Temporal summation

Two studies [43, 45] investigated changes in TS following a psychological and exercise intervention in individuals with Achilles tendinopathy [43] and knee osteoarthritis [45]. Meta-analysis of the two trials [39, 41] (n = 142 participants) post-intervention revealed no significant between group difference in temporal summation scores [SMD=-0.05; 95% CI 0.48 − 0.39; Z = 0.21; P = 0.84]. The results have low levels of heterogeneity I2 = 0% (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Effect of combined exercise and psychological intervention on post intervention TS scores

Legend:

Forest plot for post-intervention analysis comparing combined exercise and psychological intervention with control group for TS scores

Full size image

Pain intensity outcomes

Seven randomised control trials [41, 43, 44, 46,47,48, 50] investigated changes in pain scores following a psychological and exercise intervention in individuals with low back pain [41, 46, 48], spinal pain [44], Achilles tendinopathy [43], cervical pain [47] and knee pain [50]. In terms of pain scores, four of these studies showed significant differences between the experimental group and comparator group post intervention [41, 44, 48,49,50]. Meta-analysis of the seven studies (n = 571 participants) demonstrated statistically significant differences in pain intensity were found in favour of the combined exercise and psychological intervention group [SMD=-0.89; 95% CI -1.66- -0.13; P = 0.02] with high heterogeneity (I2 = 94%) noted in the included studies (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Effect of combined exercise and psychological intervention on post intervention pain intensity scores

Legend:

Forest plot for post-intervention analysis comparing combined exercise and psychological intervention with control group for pain intensity scores

Full size image

Central sensitisation inventory

Two RCTs investigated changes in CSI scores following a psychological and exercise intervention in individuals with low back pain [46] and spinal pain [44]. Meta-analysis of the two studies (n = 277 participants) showed statistically significant differences in CSI score in favour of the combined exercise and psychological intervention group (n = 2 studies), [SMD=-0.69; 95% CI -1.37- -0.02; P = 0.006] with high heterogeneity I2 = 87% noted in the included studies (Fig. 8). Both studies experimental interventions included pain neuroscience education (PNE), with Malfliet et al. [46] combining PNE with one-on-one exercises sessions over 12 weeks and Galan-Martin et al. [44] combining PNE with group exercise over six weeks.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Effect of combined exercise and psychological intervention on post intervention CSI scores

Legend:

Forest plot for post-intervention analysis comparing combined exercise and psychological intervention with control group for CSI scores

Full size image

Discussion

To our knowledge this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis that has specifically investigated the effects of combined exercise and psychological interventions on measures of nervous system sensitisation in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. The current review found combined exercise and psychological interventions compared to a control group demonstrated improvements post-intervention in local PPT scores, patient reported pain scores and CSI scores in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain and no significant differences in the dynamic QST measures (CPM and TS) or remote PPT scores, It is notable that there was evidence of large heterogeneity in the results for local PPT scores, patient reported pain scores and CSI scores which necessitates caution in interpreting these results.

PPT local and remote

The most frequently utilised QST measures were local PPTs, investigated in 12 of the included [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52] studies. In nine [41, 43, 45, 46, 48,49,50,51,52] of those 12 studies, remote PPTs were measured in addition to local PPTs. In the literature, PPT appears to be the most frequently assessed QST parameter [54]. A recent meta-analysis [55] compared PPTs in a pooled sample of individuals with CP (n = 1280) and healthy controls (n = 1463) and found those with CP had significantly lower PPTs compared with healthy controls (pooled PPT mean difference was − 1.17, 95%CI = − 1.45 to − 0.90).

Meta-analysis of the trials in the current review suggests that following a combined exercise and psychological intervention, local PPTs were significantly increased in adults with mixed chronic musculoskeletal conditions [SMD = 0.44; 95% CI 0.08–0.81; P = 0.02] and in a low back pain subgroup [SMD = 0.80; 95% CI 0.27–1.33; P = 0.006], when compared to a control intervention. No significant between group differences were found in the remote PPT measures [SMD = 0.04; 95% CI -0.17-0.24; P = 0.73]. It is important to observe that high heterogeneity (I2) was present in the local PPT score results (I2 = 84%). This heterogeneity was anticipated following review of a previous meta-analysis investigating PPT scores [34]. In addition, on investigation of the methodology described in the included studies measuring PPT, and the variable descriptions of the areas measured in both local and remote PPTs, it is notable that variation exists in the testing procedures which may impact the consistency of the results. The random-effects model was utilised in analysis of the data, due to the identified heterogeneity of the studies. As PPTs preferentially activate deep afferent fibres, they are considered an appropriate measure of the local pain areas response to blunt mechanical stimuli, thought to reflect local sensitisation of Aδ and C fibres [56]. Furthermore, when considering remote PPTs, static mechanical allodynia of remote areas assessed by remote PPTs is thought to reflect mechanisms of CS found in nociplastic pain [11]. As CS may be one of the key mechanisms associated with nociplastic pain, the effects of the combined interventions appeared to preferentially affect peripheral pain mechanisms, as measured by hyperalgesia (PPTs). It is notable that a greater number of trials (n = 9 studies), with a larger sample size (n = 839 participants) were used in the meta-analysis of local PPTs compared to remote PPTs which may contribute to this outcome.

Previous reviews investigating exercise interventions only in individuals with CP have reported some differing results to the current review. A review by Hall et al. [57] investigated the effects of both short- and longer-term exercise interventions on PPTs in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (n = 16 studies). Following a single bout of exercise, only local PPTs increased significantly [SMD 0.26, 95% CI 0.02–0.51, P = 0.04, I2 = 46%]. Following a longer exercise programme (5–12 weeks) no statistically significant changes were found in local [SMD 0.23, 95% CI -0.01-0.47, P = 0.06, I2 = 64%] or remote PPTs [57]. In the current review, only local PPTs were found to improve following participation in a longer-term (4–18 weeks) exercise intervention combined with a psychological intervention. While no reviews to date have examined the effects of combined exercise and psychological intervention on QST, a recent systematic review [58] investigated the potential benefits of combining exercise with Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for adults with chronic diseases. This review [58] highlighted that CBT combined with exercise significantly decreased depression and anxiety with small effect sizes and fatigue with a large effect size, when compared to usual care or waitlist, however no QST measures were reported in the studies included in the review. Considering changes in depression and anxiety may reflect changes in central processing mechanisms, QST measures could be considered as a further investigation of these central nervous system changes.

CPM and TS

In the current review, CPM was investigated in four of the included studies [43, 45, 46, 51] and TS was investigated in three of the included studies [43, 45, 51]. The meta-analysis of dynamic QST measures in the current review, showed no significant between group differences for TS measures [SMD=-0.05; 95% CI 0.48 − 0.39; P = 0.84], and for CPM [SMD = 0.67; 95% CI -0.77-2.11; P = 0.36]. Variable outcomes have been shown when CPM has been previously investigated, with reviews reporting mixed results on the CPM effect in pain and control groups [59, 60]. The clinical value of CPM is thought to be in being a measure of the brain’s capacity for activating endogenous analgesia, via the descending tracts [12], which is important to consider in relation to the effects of both exercise and psychological interventions in CP. A number of the psychological interventions of the studies included in the current review included elements of pain neuroscience education [41, 43, 44, 46, 47]. Previous research investigating pain education alone shows that educating individuals with CP about pain mechanisms and challenging maladaptive pain cognitions/behaviours can also alter central pain processing [61, 62]. In individuals with CP, an increased understanding of pain using the “explain pain” [63] concept has been shown to correspond to an improvement in CPM [61].

Due to the small numbers of studies (n = 2) included in the meta-analysis investigating CPM in the current review, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the findings of the effects of combined exercise and psychological interventions on this QST measure. A number of previous studies investigating TS and CPM focused on exploring the measures as predictors of outcome [64,65,66]. The studies included in the current meta-analysis utilised these dynamic QST measures as markers of treatment outcome, following participation in combined exercise and psychological interventions. Utilising dynamic QST as markers of treatment outcome has been a more common strategy in studies investigating the central modulatory effects of drug interventions [67, 68], however future research could investigate changes in the central nervous system following participation in combined exercise and psychological interventions.

Pain and CSI

In the current review, meta-analysis of post intervention pain severity scores improved significantly [SMD=-0.89; CI -1.66- -0.13; P = 0.02] in the combined exercise and psychology group compared to the control group for different groups of individuals with CP, i.e. low back pain [41, 46, 48], knee osteoarthritis [50], neck pain [47], spinal pain [44] and Achilles tendinopathy [43]. The average change in mean pain score of the combined studies was 2.7 (SD2.9) in the combined exercise and psychological intervention group and 1.4 (SD2.4) in the control group. This finding is interesting as research highlights that the primary aims of pain management programmes are to reduce emotional distress and improve physical function rather than focusing on eliminating pain [69, 70]. Moreover, for CSI scores, the current meta-analysis showed significant differences post intervention, in favour of the combined exercise and psychological intervention group [SMD=-0.69; CI -1.37- -0.02; P = 0.006]. Similar to the findings for local PPT scores, high levels of heterogeneity were found in the CSI score results, and in addition, only two of the studies in this review were included in the meta-analysis. Considering no changes were found in favour of a combined exercise and psychological intervention in the meta-analysis investigating QST measures proposed to investigate the mechanisms involved in central sensitisation (TS, CPM, remote PPT), conflicting results are found in the meta-analysis of the post-intervention CSI scores. This finding may not be unique, as a recent systematic review (n = 69 studies) [71] investigated if questionnaires exploring central sensitisation reflected measures of nociceptive sensitisation. In this review the authors investigated the degrees to which the CSI and the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire assessed nociceptive sensitisation or emotional sensitisation. When the CSI was examined for its correlation with QST measures, the results found no or weak correlations with a number of QST measures; PPTs, TS, and CPM (r < 0.3). The CSI was found however to be strongly correlated with psychological measures (anxiety, depression, pain catastrophising, stress, sleep, and kinesiophobia) with the review concluding that the CSI seemed to identify people with a psychological vulnerability that is associated with pain, rather than central sensitisation itself [71]. With the current review examining interventions that were composed in part of psychological components, it may be possible that the changes identified in CSI scores in the meta-analysis, reflected changes in some psychological constructs in the intervention participants. Furthermore, the effects of exercise on psychological outcomes has been outlined in previous studies. A recent review of Cochrane systematic reviews (n = 21 systematic reviews) evaluated exercise for individuals with CP [72] highlighting five reviews that assessed psychological function [73,74,75,76,77] and found exercise interventions had significant effects on measures of mental health [75], depression scores [73] and anxiety [77].

In the current meta-analysis, two studies investigated CSI scores. A study investigating the effect of pain neuroscience education combined with cognition-targeted motor control training on chronic spinal pain [46], reported mean baseline scores of 40.02(1.47) were found in the combined exercise and psychology group and 39.88(1.47) in the control group. A second study [44] investigating pain neuroscience education and physical therapeutic exercise for participants with chronic spinal pain, also was found to have high mean CSI baseline scores; 43.4(12.5) in the combined exercise and psychology group and 38.6(11.7) in the control group. The baseline CSI scores in these two studies suggest that the cohorts included in these studies consisted of centrally sensitised individuals, with cut off scores of > 40 on the CSI indicating the presence of CS [78].

Strengths and limitations

It is a strength of the current review that the majority of included studies examined the QST measure, PPT, allowing a large sample for meta-analysis. In terms of limitations, a smaller number of studies examined CPM, TS and the CSI. The eligibility criteria for patients in this study outlined that studies that investigated individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain would be included with the classification of chronic musculoskeletal pain guided by the ICD-11 classification for chronic pain. A wide range of different types of musculoskeletal pain conditions were reported in the studies, which may have condition specific implications for the effects of interventions on measures of nervous system sensitisation. However, associations in the heterogeneous sample found in the current review may also point to underlying factors related to pain mechanisms common to multiple chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions. Furthermore, a limitation of this review was the variability found in the comparison groups of the included studies included in the meta-analysis. A large number of studies included in this review used active comparison groups. This is important to consider when combining the effect of the interventions compared to the comparators in this review and is considered a limitation. In addition, it is notable that variation in testing procedures were described in testing PPT, CPM and TS which may have contributed to the heterogeneity found in resulting scores.

Conclusions

When considering the future of personalised pain treatment, research to date has identified QST measures to be useful to phenotype CP patient subgroups based on different underlying pain mechanisms [79,80,81], and to predict response to treatment based on mechanistic phenotype [82, 83]. Further research is required to quantify changes in nervous system sensitisation, using QST, following interventions utilising combined exercise and psychological approaches. In order to effectively investigate and pool the data from future research utilising QST measures, it would be helpful if both QST testing procedures and sites of testing were standardised. The ability to quantify change using QST may help measure the effects of such programmes on pain sensitisation measures and facilitate identification of individuals who may benefit from participation in these programmes. Including further longitudinal prospective studies with larger cohorts of individuals with CP in studies to investigate longer term effects of combined exercise and psychological interventions on static and dynamic QST measures could contribute to understanding the effects of this type of intervention on nervous system sensitisation.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CBT:

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy

CI:

Confidence Interval

CP:

Chronic Pain

CPM:

Conditioned Pain Modulation

CS:

Central Sensitisation

CSI:

Central Sensitisation Inventory

I2 :

Heterogeneity Statistic

PPT:

Pressure Pain Threshold

QST:

Quantitative Sensory Testing

RCT:

Randomised Control Trial

SMD:

Standard Mean Difference

TS:

Temporal Summation

References

  1. Banic B, Petersen-Felix S, Andersen OK, Radanov BP, Villiger MP, Arendt-Nielsen L, et al. Evidence for spinal cord hypersensitivity in chronic pain after whiplash injury and in fibromyalgia. Pain. 2004;1071:7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Daenen L, Nijs J, Raadsen B, et al. Cervical motor dysfunction and its predictive value for long-term recovery in patients with acute whiplash-associated disorders: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45:113–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Price DD, Staud R, Robinson ME, et al. Enhanced temporal summation of second pain and its central modulation in fibromyalgia patients. Pain. 2002;99:49–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jull GA. The neurophysiology of pain and pain modulation: modern pain neuroscience for musculoskeletal physiotherapists. Edinburgh:: Elsevier; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chimenti RL, Frey-Law LA, Sluka KA. A mechanism-based approach to physical therapist management of pain. Phys Ther. 2018;98:302–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hall T, Briffa K, Schäfer A, et al. Quantitative sensory testing: implications for clinical practice. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Courtney CA, Kavchak AE, Lowry CD, O’Hearn MA. Interpreting joint pain: quantitative sensory testing in musculoskeletal management. J Orthop Sports Phys Therapy. 2010;12:818–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pavlaković G, Petzke F. The role of quantitative sensory testing in the evaluation of musculoskeletal pain conditions. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2010;12:455–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Arendt-Nielsen L, Yarnitsky D. Experimental and clinical applications of quantitative sensory testing applied to skin, muscles and viscera. J Pain. 2009;10:556–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pfau DB, Geber C, Birklein F, et al. Quantitative sensory testing of neuropathic pain patients: potential mechanistic and therapeutic implications. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2012;16:199–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kosek E, Clauw D, Nijs J. Chronic nociplastic pain affecting the musculoskeletal system: clinical criteria and grading system. Pain. 2021;162:2629–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Miranda J, Lamana SMS, Dias EV, et al. Effect of pain chronification and chronic pain on an endogenous pain modulation circuit in rats. Neuroscience. 2015;286:37–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gatchel RJ, Peng YB, Peters ML, et al. The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: scientific advances and future directions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:581–624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Turk DC, Burwinkle TM. Clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and the role of psychology in treatments for chronic pain sufferers. Prof Psychology: Res Pract. 2005;36:602–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lumley MA, Schubiner H. Emotional awareness and expression therapy for chronic pain: rationale, principles and techniques, evidence. Critical Review Current Rheumatology Reports. 2019;21:30.

  16. Thiel A, Sudeck G, Gropper H. The IREACT study – a biopsychosocial analysis of the individual response to physical activity. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2020;17:100508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fransen M, McConnell S, Hernandez-Molina G, et al. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the hip. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2014;4:CD007912.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Silva KNG, Mizusaki Imoto A, Almeida GJ, et al. Balance training (proprioceptive training) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2010;5:CD007648.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Busch AJ, Webber SC, Richards RS. Resistance exercise training for fibromyalgia. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2013;12:CD010884.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Brown J, Brown S. Exercise for dysmenorrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2017;2:CD004142.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lima LV, Abner TS, Sluka KA. Does exercise increase or decrease pain? Central mechanisms underlying these two phenomena. J Physiol. 2017;595:4141–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Geva N, Defrin R. Enhanced pain modulation among triathletes: a possible explanation for their exceptional capabilities. Pain. 2013;154:2317–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Andrzejewski W, Kassolik K, Brzozowski M, et al. The influence of age and physical activity on the pressure sensitivity of soft tissues of the musculoskeletal system. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2010;14:382–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Oosterwijck J, Nijs J, Meeus M, et al. Lack of endogenous pain inhibition during exercise in people with chronic whiplash associated disorders: an experimental study. J Pain. 2012;13:242–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Meeus M, Roussel NA, Truijen S, et al. Reduced pressure pain thresholds in response to exercise in chronic fatigue syndrome but not in chronic low back pain: an experimental study. J Rehabilitation Med. 2010;42:884–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3. Cochrane. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

  27. Moher D. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Abenhaim L, Rossignol M, Valat JP. The role of activity in the therapeutic management of back pain. Spine. 2000;25:1S–33S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, et al. Reliability of the pedro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83:713–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gonzalez GZ, Moseley AM, Maher CG, et al. Methodologic quality and statistical reporting of physical therapy randomized controlled trials relevant to musculoskeletal conditions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;1:129–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Foley NC, Teasell RW, Bhogal SK, et al. Stroke rehabilitation evidence-based review: methodology. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2003;10:1–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Published January, 2000. Accessed February 2023 http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

  33. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fingleton C, Smart K, Moloney N, et al. Pain sensitization in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23:1043–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2019;10:ED000142.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane Handb Syst Reviews Interventions. 2019;241–84.

  37. Huedo-Medina TB, Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, et al. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or i2 index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11:193–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: Cochrane; 2019. (Chap. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Takeshima N, Sozu T, Tajika A, et al. Which is more generalizable, powerful and interpretable in meta-analyses, mean difference or standardized mean difference? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bodes Pardo G, Lluch Girbés E, Roussel NA, et al. Pain neurophysiology education and therapeutic exercise for patients with chronic low back pain: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99:338–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cabak A, Rudnicka A, Kulej L, et al. Biopsychosocial rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic back pain. Pilot study. Ortop Traumatologia Rehabilitacja. 2017;19:165–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chimenti RL, Post AA, Rio EK. The effects of pain science education plus exercise on pain and function in chronic achilles tendinopathy: a blinded, placebo-controlled, explanatory, randomized trial. Pain. 2022;164:e47–e65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Galan-Martin MA, Montero-Cuadrado F, Lluch-Girbes E, et al. Pain neuroscience education and physical therapeutic exercise for patients with chronic spinal pain in Spanish physiotherapy primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. J Clin Med. 2020;9:1201.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Holm PM, Petersen KK, Wernbom M, et al. Strength training in addition to neuromuscular exercise and education in individuals with knee osteoarthritis—the effects on pain and sensitization. Eur J Pain. 2021;25:1898–911.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Malfliet A, Kregel J, Coppieters I. Effect of pain neuroscience education combined with cognition-targeted motor control training on chronic spinal pain. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75:808.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Matias BA, Vieira I, Pereira A, et al. Pain neuroscience education plus exercise compared with exercise in university students with chronic idiopathic neck pain. Int J Therapy Rehabilitation. 2019;26:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Polaski AM, Phelps AL, Smith TJ. Integrated meditation and exercise therapy: a randomized controlled pilot of a combined nonpharmacological intervention focused on reducing disability and pain in patients with chronic low back pain. Pain Med. 2021;22:444–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Ris I, Søgaard K, Gram B, et al. Does a combination of physical training, specific exercises and pain education improve health-related quality of life in patients with chronic neck pain? A randomised control trial with a 4-month follow up. Man Therap. 2016;26:132–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Skou ST, Roos EM, Simonsen O. The efficacy of non-surgical treatment on pain and sensitization in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a pre-defined ancillary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2016;24:108–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Georgopoulos V, Akin-Akinyosoye K, Smith S, et al. An observational study of centrally facilitated pain in individuals with chronic low back pain. PAIN Rep. 2022;7:e1003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Sitges C, Terrasa JL, García-Dopico N, et al. An educational and exercise mobile phone-based intervention to elicit electrophysiological changes and to improve psychological functioning in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain (BackFit app): nonrandomized clinical trial. JMIR. 2022;3:e29171.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Vaegter HB, Ussing K, Johansen JV. Improvements in clinical pain and experimental pain sensitivity after cognitive functional therapy in patients with severe persistent low back pain. PAIN Rep. 2019;1:e802.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Amiri M, Alavinia M, Singh M, et al. Pressure pain threshold in patients with chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;100:656–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Suokas AK, Walsh DA, McWilliams DF. Quantitative sensory testing in painful osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2012;20:1075–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Treede R-D, Rolke R, Andrews K, et al. Pain elicited by blunt pressure: neurobiological basis and clinical relevance. Pain. 2002;98:235–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Hall M, Dobson F, Plinsinga M. Effect of exercise on pain processing and motor output in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2020;28:1501–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Bernard P, Romain A-J, Caudroit J. Cognitive behavior therapy combined with exercise for adults with chronic diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2018;37:433–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. O’Brien AT, El-Hagrassy MM, Rafferty H. Impact of therapeutic interventions on pain intensity and endogenous pain modulation in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Med. 2019;20:1000–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Neelapala YV, Bhagat M, Frey-Law L. Conditioned pain modulation in chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2019;36:135–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Van Oosterwijck J, Meeus M, Paul L, et al. Pain physiology education improves health status and endogenous pain inhibition in fibromyalgia. Clin J Pain. 2013;29:873–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Archer KR, Motzny N, Abraham CM. Cognitive-behavioral–based physical therapy to improve surgical spine outcomes: a case series. Phys Ther. 2013;93:1130–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Moseley GL, Butler DS. Explain pain supercharged. Adelaide, South Australia, Australia: Noigroup; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Jull G, Kenardy J, Hendrikz J, et al. Management of acute whiplash: a randomized controlled trial of multidisciplinary stratified treatments. Pain. 2013;154:1798–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Coronado R, Bialosky J, Bishop M, et al. The comparative effects of spinal and peripheral thrust manipulation and exercise on pain sensitivity and the relation to clinical outcome: a mechanistic trial using a shoulder pain model. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45:252–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Henriksen M, Klokker L, Graven-Nielsen T, et al. Association of exercise therapy and reduction of pain sensitivity in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66:1836–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Niesters M, Aarts L, Sarton E, et al. Influence of ketamine and morphine on descending pain modulation in chronic pain patients: a randomized placebo-controlled cross-over proof-of-concept study. Br J Anaesth. 2013;6:1010–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Yarnitsky D, Granot M, Nahman-Averbuch, et al. Conditioned pain modulation predicts duloxetine efficacy in painful diabetic neuropathy. Pain. 2012;6:1193–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Flor H, Fydrich T, Turk DC. Efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment centers: a meta-analytic review. Pain. 1992;49:221–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Hoffman BM, Papas RK, Chatkoff DK, et al. Meta-analysis of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain. Health Psychol. 2007;26:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Adams GR, Gandhi W, Harrison R. Do ‘central sensitization’ questionnaires reflect measures of nociceptive sensitization or psychological constructs? A systematic review and meta-analyses. Pain. 2022;164:1222–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Geneen LJ, Moore RA, Clarke C. Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2017;1:CD011279.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Busch AJ, Webber SC, Richards RS, et al. Resistance exercise training for fibromyalgia. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2013;12:CD010884.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Boldt I, Eriks-Hoogland I, Brinkhof MWG, et al. Non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in people with spinal cord injury. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2014;11:CD009177.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Bartels EM, Lund H, Hagen KB, et al. Aquatic exercise for the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2016;3:CD005523.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Bidonde J, Busch AJ, Webber SC, et al. Aquatic exercise training for fibromyalgia. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2014;10:CD011336.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Cramp F, Hewlett S, Almeida C, et al. Non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2013;8:CD008322.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Neblett R, Cohen H, Choi YH. The central sensitization inventory (CSI): establishing clinically significant values for identifying central sensitivity syndromes in an outpatient chronic pain sample. J Pain. 2013;14:438–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Tanaka K, Murata S, Nishigami T. The central sensitization inventory predicts pain-related disability for musculoskeletal disorders in the primary care setting. Eur J Pain. 2019;23:1640–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Phillips K, Clauw DJ. Central pain mechanisms in chronic pain states – maybe it is all in their head. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011;25:141–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. van Wijk G, Veldhuijzen DS. Perspective on diffuse noxious inhibitory controls as a model of endogenous pain modulation in clinical pain syndromes. J Pain. 2010;11:408–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Staud R. Abnormal endogenous pain modulation is a shared characteristic of many chronic pain conditions. Expert Rev Neurother. 2012;12:577–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Eisenberg E, Midbari A, Haddad M, et al. Predicting the analgesic effect to oxycodone by ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ quantitative sensory testing in healthy subjects. Pain. 2010;151:104–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work is funded by the UCD Centre for Translational Pain Research, Dublin, Ireland. Award/Grant number is not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Health Sciences Building, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

    Orla Deegan, Brona M Fullen, Ricardo Segurado & Catherine Doody

Authors
  1. Orla Deegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brona M Fullen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ricardo Segurado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catherine Doody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

OD and CD were responsible for the study conception and design. CD was responsible for the funding acquisition. RS oversaw the study analysis planning and data analysis. With respect to this manuscript, the paper was drafted by OD and was critically revised by CD with further revisions by BF and RS. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Orla Deegan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deegan, O., Fullen, B.M., Segurado, R. et al. The effectiveness of a combined exercise and psychological treatment programme on measures of nervous system sensitisation in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain - a systematic review and meta-analysis.. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 140 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07274-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07274-8

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us