Course of psychological variables in whiplash injury--a 2-year follow-up with age, gender and education pair-matched patients

This study evaluated the course of psychological variables during a 2-year follow-up in patients after common whiplash of the cervical spine. From a sample of 117 non-selected patients with common whiplash (investigated on average 7.2 +/- 4.2 days after trauma) a total of 21 suffered trauma-related symptoms over 2 years following initial injury. These patients (symptomatic group) were compared with 21 age, gender and education pair-matched patients, who showed complete recovery from trauma-related symptoms during the 2-year follow-up (asymptomatic group). Both groups underwent standardised testing procedures (i.e., Freiburg Personality Inventory and Well-Being Scale) at referral, and at 3, 6 and 24 months. In the symptomatic group during follow-up no significant changes in rating of neck pain or headache were found. Significant differences between the groups and significant deviation of scores over time were found on the Well-Being and Nervousness Scales. There was a lack of significant difference between the groups on the Depression Scale, indicating a possible somatic basis for changes in psychological functioning in the investigated sample. With regard to scales of Extraversion or Neuroticism, there were neither significant differences between the groups nor significant deviation over time. These results highlight that patients' psychological problems are rather a consequence than a cause of somatic symptoms in whiplash.

[Psychophysiologic manifestations, psychological and somatic risk factors and the physician-patient relationship in patients with heart diseases]

In daily medicine we often see patients complaining about thoracic pain. There is little doubt about the etiology in the most cases, but several patients continue posing diagnostic problems. There are different pathophysiological views to understand the situation of those patients, and it is important to determine their mental and psychological conditions. For this purpose, the focus on transference and countertransference phenomena has to be stressed. With these elements it will be possible to determine the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to those patients to reassure them and to justify investigations.

Development of a screening tool predicting the transition from acute to chronic low back pain for patients in a GP setting: protocol of a multinational prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is by far the most prevalent and costly musculoskeletal problem in our society today. Following the recommendations of the Multinational Musculoskeletal Inception Cohort Study (MMICS) Statement, our study aims to define outcome assessment tools for patients with acute LBP and the time point at which chronic LBP becomes manifest and to identify patient characteristics which increase the risk of chronicity. METHODS: Patients with acute LBP will be recruited from clinics of general practitioners (GPs) in New Zealand (NZ) and Switzerland (CH). They will be assessed by postal survey at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months follow-up. Primary outcome will be disability as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); key secondary endpoints will be general health as measured by the acute SF-12 and pain as measured on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). A subgroup analysis of different assessment instruments and baseline characteristics will be performed using multiple linear regression models. This study aims to examine: 1. Which biomedical, psychological, social, and occupational outcome assessment tools are identifiers for the transition from acute to chronic LBP and at which time point this transition becomes manifest. 2. Which psychosocial and occupational baseline characteristics like work status and period of work absenteeism influence the course from acute to chronic LBP. 3. Differences in outcome assessment tools and baseline characteristics of patients in NZ compared with CH. DISCUSSION: This study will develop a screening tool for patients with acute LBP to be used in GP clinics to access the risk of developing chronic LBP. In addition, biomedical, psychological, social, and occupational patient characteristics which influence the course from acute to chronic LBP will be identified. Furthermore, an appropriate time point for follow-ups will be given to detect this transition. The generalizability of our findings will be enhanced by the international perspective of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: [Clinical Trial Registration Number, ACTRN12608000520336].

Differences across health care systems in outcome and cost-utility of surgical and conservative treatment of chronic low back pain: a study protocol

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on differences across health care systems in choice and outcome of the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) with spinal surgery and conservative treatment as the main options. At least six randomised controlled trials comparing these two options have been performed; they show conflicting results without clear-cut evidence for superior effectiveness of any of the evaluated interventions and could not address whether treatment effect varied across patient subgroups. Cost-utility analyses display inconsistent results when comparing surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP. Due to its higher feasibility, we chose to conduct a prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: This study aims to examine if1. Differences across health care systems result in different treatment outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP2. Patient characteristics (work-related, psychological factors, etc.) and co-interventions (physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, return-to-work programs, etc.) modify the outcome of treatment for CLBP3. Cost-utility in terms of quality-adjusted life years differs between surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP.This study will recruit 1000 patients from orthopaedic spine units, rehabilitation centres, and pain clinics in Switzerland and New Zealand. Effectiveness will be measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline and after six months. The change in ODI will be the primary endpoint of this study.Multiple linear regression models will be used, with the change in ODI from baseline to six months as the dependent variable and the type of health care system, type of treatment, patient characteristics, and co-interventions as independent variables. Interactions will be incorporated between type of treatment and different co-interventions and patient characteristics. Cost-utility will be measured with an index based on EQol-5D in combination with cost data. CONCLUSION: This study will provide evidence if differences across health care systems in the outcome of treatment of CLBP exist. It will classify patients with CLBP into different clinical subgroups and help to identify specific target groups who might benefit from specific surgical or conservative interventions. Furthermore, cost-utility differences will be identified for different groups of patients with CLBP. Main results of this study should be replicated in future studies on CLBP.

[Neither Descartes nor Freud? current pain models in psychosomatic medicine]

Models explaining chronic pain based on the mere presence or absence of peripheral somatic findings or which view pain of psychological origin when there is no somatic explanation, have their shortcomings. Current scientific knowledge calls for distinct pain concepts, which integrate neurobiological and neuropsychological aspects of pain processing.

Identification of prognostic factors for chronicity in patients with low back pain: a review of screening instruments

Low back pain (LBP) is currently the most prevalent and costly musculoskeletal problem in modern societies. Screening instruments for the identification of prognostic factors in LBP may help to identify patients with an unfavourable outcome. In this systematic review screening instruments published between 1970 and 2007 were identified by a literature search. Nine different instruments were analysed and their different items grouped into ten structures. Finally, the predictive effectiveness of these structures was examined for the dependent variables including "work status", "functional limitation", and "pain". The strongest predictors for "work status" were psychosocial and occupational structures, whereas for "functional limitation" and "pain" psychological structures were dominating. Psychological and occupational factors show a high reliability for the prognosis of patients with LBP. Screening instruments for the identification of prognostic factors in patients with LBP should include these factors as a minimum core set.

Traumatization and chronic pain: a further model of interaction.

Up to 80% of patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder are suffering from "unexplained" chronic pain. Theories about the links between traumatization and chronic pain have become the subject of increased interest over the last several years. We will give a short summary about the existing interaction models that emphasize particularly psychological and behavioral aspects of this interaction. After a synopsis of the most important psychoneurobiological mechanisms of pain in the context of traumatization, we introduce the hypermnesia-hyperarousal model, which focuses on two psychoneurobiological aspects of the physiology of learning. This hypothesis provides an answer to the hitherto open question about the origin of pain persistence and pain sensitization following a traumatic event and also provides a straightforward explanatory model for educational purposes.

Myocardial Infarction - Stress PRevention INTervention (MI-SPRINT) to reduce the incidence of posttraumatic stress after acute myocardial infarction through trauma-focused psychological counseling: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) may occur in patients after exposure to a life-threatening illness. About one out of six patients develop clinically relevant levels of PTSD symptoms after acute myocardial infarction (MI). Symptoms of PTSD are associated with impaired quality of life and increase the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. The main hypothesis of the MI-SPRINT study is that trauma-focused psychological counseling is more effective than non-trauma focused counseling in preventing posttraumatic stress after acute MI. METHODS/DESIGN The study is a single-center, randomized controlled psychological trial with two active intervention arms. The sample consists of 426 patients aged 18 years or older who are at 'high risk' to develop clinically relevant posttraumatic stress symptoms. 'High risk' patients are identified with three single-item questions with a numeric rating scale (0 to 10) asking about 'pain during MI', 'fear of dying until admission' and/or 'worrying and feeling helpless when being told about having MI'. Exclusion criteria are emergency heart surgery, severe comorbidities, current severe depression, disorientation, cognitive impairment and suicidal ideation. Patients will be randomly allocated to a single 45-minute counseling session targeting either specific MI-triggered traumatic reactions (that is, the verum intervention) or the general role of psychosocial stress in coronary heart disease (that is, the control intervention). The session will take place in the coronary care unit within 48 hours, by the bedside, after patients have reached stable circulatory conditions. Each patient will additionally receive an illustrated information booklet as study material. Sociodemographic factors, psychosocial and medical data, and cardiometabolic risk factors will be assessed during hospitalization. The primary outcome is the interviewer-rated posttraumatic stress level at three-month follow-up, which is hypothesized to be at least 20% lower in the verum group than in the control group using the t-test. Secondary outcomes are posttraumatic stress levels at 12-month follow-up, and psychosocial functioning and cardiometabolic risk factors at both follow-up assessments. DISCUSSION If the verum intervention proves to be effective, the study will be the first to show that a brief trauma-focused psychological intervention delivered within a somatic health care setting can reduce the incidence of posttraumatic stress in acute MI patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01781247.

Who is likely to develop persistent low back pain? A longitudinal analysis of prognostic occupational factors

OBJECTIVE: Occupational low back pain (LBP) is considered to be the most expensive form of work disability, with the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP exceeding the costs of acute and subacute LBP by far. This makes the early identification of patients at risk of developing persistent LBP essential, especially in working populations. The aim of the study was to evaluate both risk factors (for the development of persistent LBP) and protective factors (preventing the development of persistent LBP) in the same cohort. PARTICIPANTS: An inception cohort of 315 patients with acute to subacute or with recurrent LBP was recruited from 14 health practitioners (twelve general practitioners and two physiotherapists) across New Zealand. METHODS: Patients with persistent LBP at six-month follow-up were compared to patients with non-persistent LBP looking at occupational, psychological, biomedical and demographic/lifestyle predictors at baseline using multiple logistic regression analyses. All significant variables from the different domains were combined into a one predictor model. RESULTS: A final two-predictor model with an overall predictive value of 78% included social support at work (OR 0.67; 95%CI 0.45 to 0.99) and somatization (OR 1.08; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Social support at work should be considered as a resource preventing the development of persistent LBP whereas somatization should be considered as a risk factor for the development of persistent LBP. Further studies are needed to determine if addressing these factors in workplace interventions for patients suffering from acute, subacute or recurrent LBP prevents subsequent development of persistent LBP.

Low back pain risk factors associated with persistence, recurrence and delayed presentation

BACKGROUND: There is little knowledge in the literature on the role of time-related variables for the prognosis of acute and subacute low back pain (LBP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the relationship between time-related LBP characteristics and prognostic factors for acute/subacute LBP. METHODS: We performed a prospective inception cohort study of 315 patients attending a health practitioner for acute/subacute LBP or recurrent LBP. One-tailed correlations were conducted between patient characteristics and time-related variables. RESULTS: The pattern of correlation between risk factors for and resources against persistent LBP differed between three time-related variables. 'Subacute LBP' and 'delayed presentation' were positively associated with psychological factors. Both indicators were negatively correlated with resources against development of persistent LBP. Moreover, 'delayed presentation' was related positively with occupational stressors. In contrast, 'recurrent LBP' was only related to more impaired health-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with current LBP waiting longer until seeking help in primary care have a more disadvantageous profile of occupational and psychological risk factors and lower resource levels. A similar but less pronounced pattern occurred in those with subacute LBP compared to those with acute LBP. Consideration of time characteristics of LBP may help to better understand LBP.

Implications of proposed fibromyalgia criteria across other functional pain syndromes

OBJECTIVES In 2010, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) proposed new criteria for the diagnosis of fibromyalgia (FM) in the context of objections to components of the criteria of 1990. The new criteria consider the Widespread Pain Index (WPI) and the Symptom Severity Score (SSS). This study evaluated the implications of the new diagnostic criteria for FM across other functional pain syndromes. METHOD A cohort of 300 consecutive in-patients with functional pain syndromes underwent a diagnostic screen according to the ACR 2010 criteria. Additionally, systematic pain assessment including algometric and psychometric data was carried out. RESULTS Twenty-five patients (8.3%) had been diagnosed with FM according to the ACR 1990 criteria. Twenty-one of them (84%) also met the new ACR 2010 criteria. In total, 130 patients (43%) fulfilled the new ACR 2010 criteria. A comparison of new vs. old cases showed a high degree of conformity in most of the pain characteristics. The new FM cases, however, revealed a pronounced heterogeneity in the anatomical pain locations, including several types of localized pain syndromes. Furthermore, patients fulfilling the ACR 2010 FM criteria differed from those with other functional pain syndromes; they had increased pain sensitivity scores and increased psychometric values for depression, anxiety, and psychological distress (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS FM according to the ACR 2010 criteria describes the 'severe half' of the spectrum of functional pain syndromes. By dropping the requirement of 'generalized pain', these criteria result in a blurring of the distinction between FM and more localized functional pain syndromes.

Pain hypersensitivity and spinal nociceptive hypersensitivity in chronic pain: prevalence and associated factors.

Hypersensitivity of pain pathways is considered a relevant determinant of symptoms in chronic pain patients, but data on its prevalence are very limited. To our knowledge, no data on the prevalence of spinal nociceptive hypersensitivity are available. We studied the prevalence of pain hypersensitivity and spinal nociceptive hypersensitivity in 961 consecutive patients with various chronic pain conditions. Pain threshold and nociceptive withdrawal reflex threshold to electrical stimulation were used to assess pain hypersensitivity and spinal nociceptive hypersensitivity, respectively. Using 10th percentile cutoff of previously determined reference values, the prevalence of pain hypersensitivity and spinal nociceptive hypersensitivity (95% confidence interval) was 71.2 (68.3-74.0) and 80.0 (77.0-82.6), respectively. As a secondary aim, we analyzed demographic, psychosocial, and clinical characteristics as factors potentially associated with pain hypersensitivity and spinal nociceptive hypersensitivity using logistic regression models. Both hypersensitivity parameters were unaffected by most factors analyzed. Depression, catastrophizing, pain-related sleep interference, and average pain intensity were significantly associated with hypersensitivity. However, none of them was significant for both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Furthermore, the odds ratios were very low, indicating modest quantitative impact. To our knowledge, this is the largest prevalence study on central hypersensitivity and the first one on the prevalence of spinal nociceptive hypersensitivity in chronic pain patients. The results revealed an impressively high prevalence, supporting a high clinical relevance of this phenomenon. Electrical pain thresholds and nociceptive withdrawal reflex explore aspects of pain processing that are mostly independent of sociodemographic, psychological, and clinical pain-related characteristics.

Psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Panic disorder is characterised by the presence of recurrent unexpected panic attacks, discrete periods of fear or anxiety that have a rapid onset and include symptoms such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating and shaking. Panic disorder is common in the general population, with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. A previous Cochrane meta-analysis suggested that psychological therapy (either alone or combined with pharmacotherapy) can be chosen as a first-line treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. However, it is not yet clear whether certain psychological therapies can be considered superior to others. In order to answer this question, in this review we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA), in which we compared eight different forms of psychological therapy and three forms of a control condition. OBJECTIVES To assess the comparative efficacy and acceptability of different psychological therapies and different control conditions for panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in adults. SEARCH METHODS We conducted the main searches in the CCDANCTR electronic databases (studies and references registers), all years to 16 March 2015. We conducted complementary searches in PubMed and trials registries. Supplementary searches included reference lists of included studies, citation indexes, personal communication to the authors of all included studies and grey literature searches in OpenSIGLE. We applied no restrictions on date, language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on adults with a formal diagnosis of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. We considered the following psychological therapies: psychoeducation (PE), supportive psychotherapy (SP), physiological therapies (PT), behaviour therapy (BT), cognitive therapy (CT), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), third-wave CBT (3W) and psychodynamic therapies (PD). We included both individual and group formats. Therapies had to be administered face-to-face. The comparator interventions considered for this review were: no treatment (NT), wait list (WL) and attention/psychological placebo (APP). For this review we considered four short-term (ST) outcomes (ST-remission, ST-response, ST-dropouts, ST-improvement on a continuous scale) and one long-term (LT) outcome (LT-remission/response). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS As a first step, we conducted a systematic search of all relevant papers according to the inclusion criteria. For each outcome, we then constructed a treatment network in order to clarify the extent to which each type of therapy and each comparison had been investigated in the available literature. Then, for each available comparison, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. Subsequently, we performed a network meta-analysis in order to synthesise the available direct evidence with indirect evidence, and to obtain an overall effect size estimate for each possible pair of therapies in the network. Finally, we calculated a probabilistic ranking of the different psychological therapies and control conditions for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS We identified 1432 references; after screening, we included 60 studies in the final qualitative analyses. Among these, 54 (including 3021 patients) were also included in the quantitative analyses. With respect to the analyses for the first of our primary outcomes, (short-term remission), the most studied of the included psychological therapies was CBT (32 studies), followed by BT (12 studies), PT (10 studies), CT (three studies), SP (three studies) and PD (two studies).The quality of the evidence for the entire network was found to be low for all outcomes. The quality of the evidence for CBT vs NT, CBT vs SP and CBT vs PD was low to very low, depending on the outcome. The majority of the included studies were at unclear risk of bias with regard to the randomisation process. We found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and detection bias. We also found selective outcome reporting bias to be present and we strongly suspected publication bias. Finally, we found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of researcher allegiance bias.Overall the networks appeared to be well connected, but were generally underpowered to detect any important disagreement between direct and indirect evidence. The results showed the superiority of psychological therapies over the WL condition, although this finding was amplified by evident small study effects (SSE). The NMAs for ST-remission, ST-response and ST-improvement on a continuous scale showed well-replicated evidence in favour of CBT, as well as some sparse but relevant evidence in favour of PD and SP, over other therapies. In terms of ST-dropouts, PD and 3W showed better tolerability over other psychological therapies in the short term. In the long term, CBT and PD showed the highest level of remission/response, suggesting that the effects of these two treatments may be more stable with respect to other psychological therapies. However, all the mentioned differences among active treatments must be interpreted while taking into account that in most cases the effect sizes were small and/or results were imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is no high-quality, unequivocal evidence to support one psychological therapy over the others for the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults. However, the results show that CBT - the most extensively studied among the included psychological therapies - was often superior to other therapies, although the effect size was small and the level of precision was often insufficient or clinically irrelevant. In the only two studies available that explored PD, this treatment showed promising results, although further research is needed in order to better explore the relative efficacy of PD with respect to CBT. Furthermore, PD appeared to be the best tolerated (in terms of ST-dropouts) among psychological treatments. Unexpectedly, we found some evidence in support of the possible viability of non-specific supportive psychotherapy for the treatment of panic disorder; however, the results concerning SP should be interpreted cautiously because of the sparsity of evidence regarding this treatment and, as in the case of PD, further research is needed to explore this issue. Behaviour therapy did not appear to be a valid alternative to CBT as a first-line treatment for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia.