Temporal relationships between pain, functioning, and human assumed central sensitization in patients with chronic low back pain; a single-case design.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation (IPR) aims to improve functioning in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and is not primary aimed at pain reduction. Many patients however also report a decrease in pain. An explanation could be that IPR results in a decrease in Central Sensitization (CS). As CS is not directly assessable in humans the term Human Assumed Central Sensitization (HACS) is used in this study. It is unknown whether a decrease in HACS precedes a decrease in pain and improved functioning or vice versa. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to gain understanding into the temporal relationships between changes in pain, functioning, and HACS in patients with CLBP during IPR. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational small-N-study. METHOD: Twelve patients filled in frequently repeated self-reports 1 week before, during the 12-week IPR program, and 2 weeks after IPR. Pain was assessed by Visual Analogue Scale for pain (daily), functioning by Pain Disability Index (weekly) and Work Ability Score (daily), and HACS by Central Sensitization Inventory part A (bi-weekly). Analyses were performed by visual inspection and time series cross-correlation analyses. RESULTS: Visual inspection showed large fluctuations within and between individual participants in patterns over time. Cross-correlation analyses showed that in most participants, relationships between pain, functioning, and HACS were strongest when analyzed at the same time (55% of comparisons). Strength and direction of (strongest) correlations showed high interindividual variability (neg: 0.33-0.97; pos: 0.22-0.99). CONCLUSION: Overall, relationships between pain, functioning, and HACS did not show consistent temporality in patients with CLBP.

Effectiveness of (Active) Lifestyle Interventions in People With a Lower Limb Amputation: A Systematic Review.

Objective: To explore the effectiveness of (active) lifestyle interventions for the health of people with a lower limb amputation in order to offer effective interventions during rehabilitation that may improve physical and psychosocial functioning of people with lower limb amputation. Data Sources: PubMed, CINAHL and Embase were searched from inception to February 2021. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were (1) (quasi-)randomized controlled trial; (2) minimum of 10 participants with a lower limb amputation; (3) lifestyle intervention focusing on physical activity, smoking habits, alcohol use, nutrition, and/or stress management; (4) focus on health outcomes; (5) participants older than 18 years; (6) studies in Dutch, German, or English; and (7) primary research. Title, abstract, and full-text screening and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent assessors. Data Extraction: Of 2460 studies identified, 13 studies were included in this review. Two studies were of moderate methodological quality, 2 studies were of medium quality, and 9 studies were of poor quality. Data Synthesis: Lifestyle interventions in the included studies focused on physical activity and stress management. These interventions seemed effective for improving physical fitness, walking capacity, changes in body mass, quality of life, and intensity of physical activity. Conclusion: Lifestyle interventions focusing on physical activity and stress management seem effective for improving physical and psychosocial functioning of people with a lower limb amputation. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution given the limited methodological quality of the included studies. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of interventions on nutrition, smoking habits, and alcohol use and the effectiveness of combined interventions in people with a lower limb amputation.