1. Investigación

Study design: Double-blind, randomized parallel sham-controlled trial with concealed allocation and intention-to treat analysis. Objective: To investigate the effects of an isolate myofascial release (MFR) protocol on pain, disability, and fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Summary of background data: MFR is a form of manual medicine widely used by physiotherapists in the management of different musculoskeletal pathologies. Up to this moment, no previous studies have reported the effects of an isolated MFR treatment in patients with CLBP. Methods: Fifty-four participants, with nonspecific CLBP, were randomized to MFR group (n = 27) receiving four sessions of myofascial treatment, each lasting 40 minutes, and to control group (n = 27) receiving a sham MFR. Variables studied were pain measured by means Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and visual analog scale (VAS), disability measured with Roland Morris Questionnaire, and fear-avoidance beliefs measured with Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. Results: Subjects receiving MFR displayed significant improvements in pain (SF-MPQ) (mean difference -7.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.5 to -1.1, P = 0.023) and sensory SF-MPQ subscale (mean difference -6.1; 95% CI: -10.8 to -1.5, P = 0.011) compared to the sham group, but no differences were found in VAS between groups. Disability and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire score also displayed a significant decrease in the MFR group (P < 0.05) as compared to sham MFR. Conclusion: MFR therapy produced a significant improvement in both pain and disability. Because the minimal clinically important differences in pain and disability are, however, included in the 95% CI, we cannot know whether this improvement is clinically relevant.

Objective: To assess the effect of different dosages of pain neuroscience education (PNE) programs on central nociceptive processing in patients with fibromyalgia. Second, to compare the effects of different dosages of PNE programs on numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), disability, and psychological variables. Design: Single-blind randomized controlled trial. Setting: Three fibromyalgia centers in Spain (Valencia, Alcorcón, Alcalá de Henares). Subjects: Seventy-seven patients with fibromyalgia. Methods: Participants were randomized to four groups of PNE: 1) high-dose PNE (N = 20), 2) low-concentrated dose PNE (N = 20), 3) diluted low-dose PNE (N = 20), and (4) control treatment (N = 17), conducted in two 30-50-minute sessions in groups of four to six participants. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM), temporal summation (TS), and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were assessed at baseline and at three-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale. Results: There were significant between-group differences for NPRS in favor of the groups receiving high-dose PNE, with a large effect size at three-month follow-up (P < 0.01, η2p = 0.170), but there were no significant differences between groups for the remaining variables (P > 0.05). All groups improved for central nociceptive processing, psychological variables, disability, and pain intensity (NPRS). Conclusions: In patients with fibromyalgia, higher dosages of PNE produced a larger improvement in pain severity at three-month follow-up than other dosages of PNE and biomedical education. However, PNE was not superior to biomedical education in the central nociceptive processing, disability, or psychological variables in patients with fibromyalgia.