Effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) for chronic spinal pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-12 DOI:10.1093/pm/pnaf002
Michele Marelli, Matteo Cioeta, Leonardo Pellicciari, Fabio Rossi, Stefania Guida, Silvia Bargeri
{"title":"Effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) for chronic spinal pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Michele Marelli, Matteo Cioeta, Leonardo Pellicciari, Fabio Rossi, Stefania Guida, Silvia Bargeri","doi":"10.1093/pm/pnaf002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) in reducing disability and pain compared to other interventions in chronic spinal pain patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five databases were queried to October 2023 for retrieving randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including patients with chronic spinal pain and administering CFT. Primary outcomes were disability and pain. Secondary outcomes included psychological factors, quality-of-life, patient satisfaction and adverse events. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (Cochrane RoB 2.0), and evidence certainty (GRADE approach). Random-effect models were used for meta-analyses. Clinical relevance was assessed with the Smallest Worthwhile Effect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight RCTs (N = 1228) for chronic low back pain (CLBP), one (N = 72) for chronic neck pain (CNP) were included. Compared to other conservative interventions, CFT may reduce disability (MD: -9.41; 95%CI: -12.56, -6.27) and pain (MD: -1.59; 95%CI: -2.33, -0.85 for CLBP) at short-term follow-up with probable to possible clinical relevance in CLBP and with low and very low evidence certainty, respectively. Similar results, with larger effect sizes, were observed for CFT compared to any unstructured or unsupervised minimal care treatments. Efficacy persisted in longer-term follow-ups, except for comparison with other conservative interventions. The CNP study showed positive results for CFT. Evidence certainty was low to very low. Sparse evidence was found for secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CFT may offer clinically relevant benefits for CLBP, although the evidence remains mainly of low to very low certainty. Well-conducted studies, particularly in CNP and other spinal pain conditions are needed to strengthen these findings.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023482667.</p>","PeriodicalId":19744,"journal":{"name":"Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnaf002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) in reducing disability and pain compared to other interventions in chronic spinal pain patients.

Methods: Five databases were queried to October 2023 for retrieving randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including patients with chronic spinal pain and administering CFT. Primary outcomes were disability and pain. Secondary outcomes included psychological factors, quality-of-life, patient satisfaction and adverse events. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (Cochrane RoB 2.0), and evidence certainty (GRADE approach). Random-effect models were used for meta-analyses. Clinical relevance was assessed with the Smallest Worthwhile Effect.

Results: Eight RCTs (N = 1228) for chronic low back pain (CLBP), one (N = 72) for chronic neck pain (CNP) were included. Compared to other conservative interventions, CFT may reduce disability (MD: -9.41; 95%CI: -12.56, -6.27) and pain (MD: -1.59; 95%CI: -2.33, -0.85 for CLBP) at short-term follow-up with probable to possible clinical relevance in CLBP and with low and very low evidence certainty, respectively. Similar results, with larger effect sizes, were observed for CFT compared to any unstructured or unsupervised minimal care treatments. Efficacy persisted in longer-term follow-ups, except for comparison with other conservative interventions. The CNP study showed positive results for CFT. Evidence certainty was low to very low. Sparse evidence was found for secondary outcomes.

Conclusion: CFT may offer clinically relevant benefits for CLBP, although the evidence remains mainly of low to very low certainty. Well-conducted studies, particularly in CNP and other spinal pain conditions are needed to strengthen these findings.

Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023482667.

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
认知功能疗法(CFT)治疗慢性脊柱疼痛的有效性:一项荟萃分析的系统综述。
目的:评价认知功能疗法(CFT)在减轻慢性脊柱痛患者残疾和疼痛方面的效果,并与其他干预措施进行比较。方法:检索截至2023年10月的5个数据库,检索随机对照试验(RCTs),包括慢性脊柱疼痛患者和给予CFT的患者。主要结局是残疾和疼痛。次要结局包括心理因素、生活质量、患者满意度和不良事件。两名独立审稿人进行了研究选择、数据提取、偏倚风险评估(Cochrane RoB 2.0)和证据确定性(GRADE方法)。meta分析采用随机效应模型。以最小的有价值效应评估临床相关性。结果:慢性腰痛(CLBP)纳入8项rct (N = 1228),慢性颈痛(CNP)纳入1项rct (N = 72)。与其他保守干预相比,CFT可减少残疾(MD: -9.41;95%CI: -12.56, -6.27)和疼痛(MD: -1.59;95%CI: -2.33, CLBP -0.85)在短期随访中,CLBP可能与可能的临床相关性,证据确定性低和极低。与任何非结构化或无监督的最小护理治疗相比,CFT观察到类似的结果,且效应量更大。除了与其他保守干预措施比较外,其疗效在长期随访中持续存在。CNP研究显示CFT阳性结果。证据确定性低到非常低。次要结局的证据较少。结论:CFT可能为CLBP提供临床相关的益处,尽管证据仍然主要是低到极低的确定性。需要进行良好的研究,特别是在CNP和其他脊柱疼痛条件下,以加强这些发现。注册号:PROSPERO CRD42023482667。
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
Pain Medicine
Pain Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
3.20%
发文量
187
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Pain Medicine is a multi-disciplinary journal dedicated to pain clinicians, educators and researchers with an interest in pain from various medical specialties such as pain medicine, anaesthesiology, family practice, internal medicine, neurology, neurological surgery, orthopaedic spine surgery, psychiatry, and rehabilitation medicine as well as related health disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, nursing, nurse practitioner, physical therapy, and integrative health.
期刊最新文献
Building Community Through Data: The value of a Researcher Driven Open Science Ecosystem. Patient-Expressed Goals in Chronic Pain Management: A Qualitative Analysis of Primary Care Visits. Effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) for chronic spinal pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) and Motor Cortex Stimulation (MCS) for Central Post-Stroke Pain: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis. Transforming Pain Medicine: The Power of Collaboration, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation.
×
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