Impact of different treatments for chronic pain on cognitive function: A systematic review.

IF 1.3 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY British Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2025-01-05 DOI:10.1177/20494637241311784
Allan Botura Brennecke, Eduardo Silva Reis Barreto, Liliane Lins-Kusterer, Liana Maria Torres de Araujo Azi, Durval Kraychete
{"title":"Impact of different treatments for chronic pain on cognitive function: A systematic review.","authors":"Allan Botura Brennecke, Eduardo Silva Reis Barreto, Liliane Lins-Kusterer, Liana Maria Torres de Araujo Azi, Durval Kraychete","doi":"10.1177/20494637241311784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Experimental evidence supports the hypothesis of reciprocal influence between neural systems involved in cognition and central pain processing circuits. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated bidirectional communication between central pain processing areas and the immune system, leading to changes in behaviour, sensory perception, mood, and cognition. However, the academic community has not yet reached a consensus on whether effective analgesic interventions can mitigate or reverse cognitive deterioration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of various therapeutic interventions in improving cognitive functions (primary outcome) and altering the profile of immunological markers (secondary outcome) in chronic pain patients. The review was limited to randomised controlled trials addressing chronic pain of any aetiology, with searches conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The qualitative synthesis of twelve studies conducted between 2003 and 2021, involving 1432 participants in experimental (<i>n</i> = 950) and control (<i>n</i> = 482) groups, revealed some interesting patterns. Only half of the studies (6/12) reported cognitive improvement, with attention being the most analysed cognitive domain, followed by memory and executive function. Fibromyalgia was the most studied aetiology of chronic pain. The strategies of intervention/treatment and durations varied widely; however, milnacipran versus placebo emerged as the most frequently employed intervention. Only one study reported immunological markers, limiting the evaluation of this outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on this analysis, it is not possible to affirm that interventions targeting chronic pain improve cognition. This review suggests new research directions and calls for more robust methodological approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":46585,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"20494637241311784"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11701906/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20494637241311784","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Experimental evidence supports the hypothesis of reciprocal influence between neural systems involved in cognition and central pain processing circuits. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated bidirectional communication between central pain processing areas and the immune system, leading to changes in behaviour, sensory perception, mood, and cognition. However, the academic community has not yet reached a consensus on whether effective analgesic interventions can mitigate or reverse cognitive deterioration.

Methods: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of various therapeutic interventions in improving cognitive functions (primary outcome) and altering the profile of immunological markers (secondary outcome) in chronic pain patients. The review was limited to randomised controlled trials addressing chronic pain of any aetiology, with searches conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases.

Results: The qualitative synthesis of twelve studies conducted between 2003 and 2021, involving 1432 participants in experimental (n = 950) and control (n = 482) groups, revealed some interesting patterns. Only half of the studies (6/12) reported cognitive improvement, with attention being the most analysed cognitive domain, followed by memory and executive function. Fibromyalgia was the most studied aetiology of chronic pain. The strategies of intervention/treatment and durations varied widely; however, milnacipran versus placebo emerged as the most frequently employed intervention. Only one study reported immunological markers, limiting the evaluation of this outcome.

Conclusion: Based on this analysis, it is not possible to affirm that interventions targeting chronic pain improve cognition. This review suggests new research directions and calls for more robust methodological approaches.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
慢性疼痛不同治疗方法对认知功能的影响:一项系统综述。
实验证据支持认知神经系统和中枢疼痛处理回路之间相互影响的假设。此外,研究表明,中枢疼痛处理区和免疫系统之间存在双向交流,导致行为、感觉知觉、情绪和认知的变化。然而,学术界尚未就有效的镇痛干预是否能减轻或逆转认知衰退达成共识。方法:本系统综述评估了各种治疗干预措施在改善慢性疼痛患者认知功能(主要结局)和改变免疫标志物(次要结局)方面的有效性。本综述仅限于针对任何病因的慢性疼痛的随机对照试验,并在PubMed、EMBASE和Scopus数据库中进行了检索。结果:对2003年至2021年间进行的12项研究进行了定性综合,涉及实验组(n = 950)和对照组(n = 482)的1432名参与者,揭示了一些有趣的模式。只有一半的研究(6/12)报告了认知能力的提高,注意力是被分析最多的认知领域,其次是记忆和执行功能。纤维肌痛是研究最多的慢性疼痛病因学。干预/治疗策略和持续时间差异很大;然而,milnacpran和安慰剂是最常用的干预措施。只有一项研究报告了免疫标记物,限制了对这一结果的评估。结论:基于这一分析,不能肯定针对慢性疼痛的干预措施能改善认知。这篇综述提出了新的研究方向,并呼吁更有力的方法方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Pain
British Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: British Journal of Pain is a peer-reviewed quarterly British journal with an international multidisciplinary Editorial Board. The journal publishes original research and reviews on all major aspects of pain and pain management. Reviews reflect the body of evidence of the topic and are suitable for a multidisciplinary readership. Where empirical evidence is lacking, the reviews reflect the generally held opinions of experts in the field. The Journal has broadened its scope and has become a forum for publishing primary research together with brief reports related to pain and pain interventions. Submissions from all over the world have been published and are welcome. Official journal of the British Pain Society.
期刊最新文献
Social prescribing for adults with chronic pain in the U.K.: a rapid review. Self-compassion in chronic pain: Validating the self-compassion scale short-form and exploring initial relationships with pain outcomes. Activating waitlists: Identifying barriers and facilitators to pain self-management while waiting. A case series of new-onset headache and neurological issues after thoracolumbar spinal cord stimulators. Impact of different treatments for chronic pain on cognitive function: A systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1