Articles: pain-measurement.
-
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil · Jan 2013
Randomized Controlled TrialExploration of the validity and reliability of the "backache disability index" (BADIX) in patients with non-specific low back pain.
In clinical examinations of a patient with non-specific low back pain (LBP), there is a need to dispose over a valid and quick to perform rating system. The "Backache Disability Index" for LBP or BADIX includes rating of 5 trunk movements in erect position and a "Morning Back Stiffness" score, whereof the sum gives the BADIX (max. 20 points). The objective of this study was to explore the reliability, responsiveness and concurrent validity of the BADIX. Patients with LBP (n=100) were randomly assigned into a "control" group (n=40) in function of validity studies, and a "treatment" group (n=60) in function of responsiveness studies. The treatment group underwent two weekly sessions of in total 30 minutes of deep cross-friction on the thoraco-lumbar Erector spinae and gluteals. All patients completed the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire validated Dutch version (ODQ), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). The impairment examination consists, besides current orthopaedic and neurologic examinations, of the new BADIX scoring system. ⋯ The "Backache Disability Index" appears to be a reliable and a valid assessment tool of morning stiffness and restricted spinal movements, and discriminates between successful and unsuccessful treatment outcome. The BADIX will allow patients to take snapshots of their daily treatment evolution, save them on their computer or tablets (apps) and share the results with their doctors and/or therapists.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial of gabapentin enacarbil for migraine prophylaxis.
The objective of this article is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin enacarbil (GEn) for migraine prophylaxis. ⋯ GEn did not significantly differ from placebo for migraine headache prophylaxis. A high placebo effect should be considered when interpreting these results.
-
Bmc Musculoskel Dis · Jan 2013
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative StudyEfficacy of graded activity versus supervised exercises in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a randomised controlled trial.
Low back pain is a relevant public health problem, being an important cause of work absenteeism worldwide, as well as affecting the quality of life of sufferers and their individual functional performances. Supervised active physical routines and of cognitive-behavioral therapies are recommended for the treatment of chronic Low back pain, although evidence to support the effectiveness of different techniques is missing. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to contrast the effectiveness of two types of exercises, graded activity or supervised, in decreasing symptoms of chronic low back pain. ⋯ This project describes the randomisation method that will be used to compare the effectiveness of two different treatments for chronic low back pain: graded activity and supervised exercises. Since optimal approach for patients with chronic back pain have yet not been defined based on evidence, good quality studies on the subject are necessary.
-
Bmc Musculoskel Dis · Jan 2013
Randomized Controlled TrialElectrical stimulation for chronic non-specific low back pain in a working-age population: a 12-week double blinded randomized controlled trial.
Non-invasive electrotherapy is commonly used for treatment of chronic low back pain. Evidence for efficacy of most electrotherapy modalities is weak or lacking. This study aims to execute a high-quality, double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 1) H-Wave(®) Device stimulation plus usual care with 2) transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) plus usual care, and 3) Sham electrotherapy plus usual care to determine comparative efficacy for treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain patients. ⋯ Study strengths include complex randomization, treatment group allocation concealment, double blinding, controlling for co-interventions, rigorous inclusion criteria, assessment of compliance, plans for limiting dropout, identical assessment methods and timing for each treatment arm, and planned intention-to-treat analyses.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
We discount the pain of others when pain has no medical explanation.
The present studies investigated the impact of medical and psychosocial information on the observer's estimations of pain, emotional responses, and behavioral tendencies toward another person in pain. Participants were recruited from the community (study 1: N = 39 women, 10 men; study 2: N = 41 women, 12 men) and viewed videos of 4 patients expressing pain, paired with vignettes describing absence or presence of 1) medical evidence for the pain and 2) psychosocial influences on the pain experience. A similar methodology was used for studies 1 and 2, except for the explicit manipulation of the presence/absence of psychosocial influences in study 2. For each patient video, participant estimations of each patient's pain and their own distress, sympathy, and inclination to help were assessed. In both studies, results indicated lower ratings on all measures when medical evidence for pain was absent. Overall, no effect of psychosocial influences was found, except in study 2 where participants indicated feeling less distress when psychosocial influences were present. The findings suggest that pain is taken less seriously when there is no medical evidence for the pain. The findings are discussed in terms of potential mechanisms underlying pain estimations as well as implications for caregiving behavior. ⋯ The present studies indicate that observers take the pain of others less seriously in the absence of clear medical evidence for the pain. These findings are important to further understand the social context in which pain for which there is no clear medical explanation is experienced.