Refine
Document Type
- Article (11)
Has Fulltext
- yes (11) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (11)
Keywords
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (11) (remove)
Recognition of Emotional Facial Expressions and Alexithymia in Patients with Chronic Facial Pain
(2018)
Objectives
Alexithymia, conceived as difficulties to identify emotions, is said to be related with several pain syndromes. This study examined the recognition of facially expressed emotions and its relation to alexithymia in subjects with chronic facial pain.
Methods
A total of 62 subjects were recruited, with n=20 patients with chronic facial pain and n=42 healthy controls. All subjects were tested for the recognition of facially expressed emotions (Facially Expressed Emotion Labelling Test (FEEL test). The Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-26) was used for the diagnosis of alexithymia.
Results
Patients with chronic facial pain performed worse than controls at the FEEL task (p<.001) and showed higher total TAS scores (p<.001). This indicates the presence of alexithymia and facial emotion recognition deficits in the facial pain group.
Discussion
It was concluded from the results that both the recognition of facially expressed emotions, and the ability to identify and describe one’s own feelings (TAS), are restricted in chronic orofacial pain patients. This relationship is particularly important in the treatment of chronic facial pain, indicating that it should become part of the treatment in addition to the therapeutic key issues, to influence the quality of life of the affected patients positively.
Hintergrund
Schmerz hat einen entscheidenden Einfluss auf die humane Lebensqualität. Allein eine Wissensvergrößerung über neurobiologische Vorgänge kann das subjektive Schmerzempfinden sowie psychometrische Variablen positiv beeinflussen. Es gibt verschiedene Formen der präoperativen Patientenedukation, welche u. a. zum Ziel haben, den postoperativen Schmerz zu erklären. Laut der aktuellen Literatur liegt einer präoperativen biomedizinischen Edukation eine geringe Evidenz zugrunde. Sie kann das präoperative Angst- und Stresslevel der Patienten steigern, was sich negativ auf das postoperative Outcome auswirkt. Im Gegensatz zur biomedizinischen Edukation betrachtet das neurobiologische Verständnis den postoperativen Schmerz unter den Gesichtspunkten der Plastizität des Nervensystems und bezieht Sensibilisierungsprozesse im zentralen und peripheren Nervensystem mit ein.
Ziel
Systematische Untersuchung von Kurz- und Langzeiteffekten einer neurobiologischen (Schmerz‑)Edukation bei Patienten vor einer Wirbelsäulenoperation
Material und Methoden
Bei der Literaturrecherche wurde nach dem PI(C)O(Population Intervention Comparison Outcome)‑Schema in den medizinischen Datenbanken gesucht. 83 Artikel kamen in die engere Auswahl. Entsprechend den Ein- und Ausschlusskriterien konnten letztendlich neun Artikel eingeschlossen werden.
Ergebnisse
Durch eine präoperative neurobiologische (Schmerz‑)Edukation können postoperative Katastrophisierungstendenzen sowie die postoperative Kinesiophobie positiv beeinflusst werden. Keinen Einfluss hat eine präoperative neurobiologische Edukation auf postoperativen Schmerz und Funktion. Inkonsistenz besteht bislang in der Herangehensweise der PNE (Pain Neuroscience Education).
Schlussfolgerung
Eine präoperative Reduktion von Angst und schmerzaufrechterhaltenden Faktoren v. a. auf psychologischer und sozialer Ebene hat einen positiven Effekt auf die postoperative subjektive Schmerzbewertung, was sich in einer Reduktion von Angst, Katastrophisierungstendenzen und einer geringeren Inanspruchnahme von postoperativen Leistungen im Gesundheitswesen widerspiegelt.
BACKGROUND: The Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI) is a cross-culturally adapted instrument designed from a biopsychosocial perspective to measure pain, disability, and function in orofacial head and neck pain with shown psychometric properties; however, the German cross-cultural adaption is lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To carry out a transcultural translation of CF-PDI into German and assess its psychometric properties in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD) with respect to construct and clinical validity, internal consistency and reproducibility.
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional design.
SETTING: Patients (n = 398) were recruited from dental and physical therapy clinics in middle and south Germany.
METHODS: Structural validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We investigated know-group validity by means of the scale’s potential to discriminate between affected and unaffected subjects. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate convergent validity. We tested test-retest reliability by the intraclass correlation coefficient and the Internal consistency by Cronbach’s alpha, or each dimension separately, and the total score. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate convergent validity.
RESULTS: Two hundred forty-six heterogeneous chronic craniofacial pain patients and 152 patients without complaints were recruited from the middle and south of Germany. The German version CF-PDI-G presents 21 items, 4 factors, and adequate psychometric properties. The test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the CF-PDI-G were both excellent for the entire instrument and also for all sub-scales (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.90) except for the comorbidities and interference with work which was acceptable (ICC = 0.69). Standard error of the measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change values are sufficiently low. Assessment of clinical validity shows good potential of discrimination and classification into categories “no,” “mild,” “moderate,” and “severe.” The multiple linear regression model showed a strong association between neck disability index, Visual Analog Scale, and anamnestic questionnaire (supporting the scale’s convergent validity).
LIMITATIONS: Our sample has a higher prevalence of women and the sample was not recruited consecutively, which may lead to a biased estimation of psychometric properties.
CONCLUSIONS: The CF-PDI-G represents valid and reliable instrument to assess pain and disability in patients with orofacial pain and headache suitable for research and clinical practice.
The management of patients experiencing chronic orofacial pain is a great challenge, due to the complexity of chronic pain itself, combined with an increased peripheral sensitization in the craniofacial itself. Therefore, patients with orofacial pain may present a clear distortion of the somatorepresentation after some time. In this review, the authors develop a neurophysiological explanation of orofacial distortion, as well as propose assessment and treatment options, based on scarcely available scientific evidence and their own clinical experience. The assessments of facial somatosensory, cognitive-affective and motor dysfunctions are crucial to establish the most accurate treatment; the assessment tools are described in the article. Two-point discrimination, laterality recognition and emotion recognition are altered in patients with orofacial pain. Other sensorimotor assessment tools, such as motor acuity and auditory acuity, are also explained. Finally, the authors review their treatment proposals, based on the integration of brain training techniques and biobehavioral interventions. Somatosensory reintegration (tactile acuity training), facial emotion recognition, movement representation techniques, orofacial motor training and therapeutic patient education are explained in detail, and this may challenge new directions in rehabilitation and research.
The current narrative literature review aims to discuss clinical reasoning based on nociceptive pain mechanisms for determining the most appropriate assessment and therapeutic strategy and to identify/map the most updated scientific evidence in relation to physical therapy interventions for patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). We will also propose an algorithm for clinical examination and treatment decisions and a pain model integrating current knowledge of pain neuroscience. The clinical examination of patients with TMDs should be based on nociceptive mechanisms and include the potential identification of the dominant, central, or peripheral sensitization driver. Additionally, the musculoskeletal drivers of these sensitization processes should be assessed with the aim of reproducing symptoms. Therapeutic strategies applied for managing TMDs can be grouped into tissue-based impairment treatments (bottom-up interventions) and strategies targeting the central nervous system (top-down interventions). Bottom-up strategies include joint-, soft tissue-, and nerve-targeting interventions, as well as needling therapies, whereas top-down strategies include exercises, grade motor imagery, and also pain neuroscience education. Evidence shows that the effectiveness of these interventions depends on the clinical reasoning applied, since not all strategies are equally effective for the different TMD subgroups. In fact, the presence or absence of a central sensitization driver could lead to different treatment outcomes. It seems that multimodal approaches are more effective and should be applied in patients with TMDs. The current paper also proposes a clinical decision algorithm integrating clinical diagnosis with nociceptive mechanisms for the application of the most appropriate treatment approach.
Objectives
The aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, whether the same cut-off levels need to be considered for effectiveness when used as an adjunct or stand-alone intervention, and what is meaningful to patients.
Setting
University-initiated international survey.
Participants
The expert panel was chosen based on publications on non-pharmacological interventions in migraine populations and from personal contacts. 35 eligible researchers were contacted, 12 agreed to participate and 10 completed all 3 rounds of the survey. To further explore how migraine patients viewed potential outcome measures, four migraine patients were interviewed and presented with the same measurement tools as the researchers.
Procedures
The initial Delphi round was based on a systematic search of the literature for outcome measures used in non-pharmacological interventions for headache. Suggested outcome measures were rated by each expert, blinded towards the other members of the panel, for its usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not useful to extremely useful. Results were combined using median values and IQRs. Tools rated overall as definitely or probably not useful were excluded from subsequent rounds. Experts further suggested additional outcome measures that were presented to the panel in subsequent rounds. Additionally, experts were asked to rank the most useful tools and provide information on feasible cut-off levels for effectiveness for the three highest ranked tools.
Results
Results suggest the use of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and headache frequency as primary outcome measures. Patient experts suggested the inclusion of a measure of quality of life and evaluation of associated symptoms and fear of attacks.
Conclusions
Recommendations are for the use of the MIDAS, the HIT-6 and headache frequency, in combination with an outcome measure for quality of life. Associated symptoms and fear of attacks should also be considered as secondary outcomes, if relevant for the individual target population. The cut-off level for effectiveness should be lower for non-pharmacological interventions, especially when used as an adjunct to medication.
Objectives
To develop a time-efficient motor control (MC) test battery while maximising diagnostic accuracy of both a two-level and three-level classification system for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP).
Design
Case–control study.
Setting
Four private physiotherapy practices in northern Germany.
Participants
Consecutive males and females presenting to a physiotherapy clinic with non-specific LBP (n=65) were compared with 66 healthy-matched controls.
Primary outcome measures
Accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, positive/negative likelihood ratio, area under the curve (AUC)) of a clinically driven consensus-based test battery including the ideal number of test items as well as threshold values and most accurate items.
Results
For both the two and three-level categorisation system, the ideal number of test items was 10. With increasing number of failed tests, the probability of having LBP increases. The overall discrimination potential for the two-level categorisation system of the test is good (AUC=0.85) with an optimal cut-off of three failed tests. The overall discrimination potential of the three-level categorisation system is fair (volume under the surface=0.52). The optimal cut-off for the 10-item test battery for categorisation into none, mild/moderate and severe MC impairment is three and six failed tests, respectively.
Conclusion
A 10-item test battery is recommended for both the two-level (impairment or not) and three-level (none, mild, moderate/severe) categorisation of patients with non-specific LBP.
Background
Osteoarthritis of the knee is the most common cause for disability and limited mobility in the elderly, with considerable individual suffering and high direct and indirect disease-related costs. Nonsurgical interventions such as exercise, enhanced physical activity, and self-management have shown beneficial effects for pain reduction, physical function, and quality of life (QoL), but access to these treatments may be limited. Therefore, home therapy is strongly recommended. However, adherence to these programs is low. Patients report lack of motivation, feedback, and personal interaction as the main barriers to home therapy adherence. To overcome these barriers, electronic health (eHealth) is seen as a promising opportunity. Although beneficial effects have been shown in the literature for other chronic diseases such as chronic pain, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, a systematic literature review on the efficacy of eHealth interventions for patients with osteoarthritis of knee is missing so far.
Objective
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of eHealth-supported home exercise interventions with no or other interventions regarding pain, physical function, and health-related QoL in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.
Methods
MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PEDro were systematically searched using the keywords osteoarthritis knee, eHealth, and exercise. An inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis was carried out pooling standardized mean differences (SMDs) of individual studies. The Cochrane tool was used to assess risk of bias in individual studies, and the quality of evidence across studies was evaluated following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
Results
The literature search yielded a total of 648 results. After screening of titles, abstracts, and full-texts, seven randomized controlled trials were included. Pooling the data of individual studies demonstrated beneficial short-term (pain SMD=−0.31, 95% CI −0.58 to −0.04, low quality; QoL SMD=0.24, 95% CI 0.05-0.43, moderate quality) and long-term effects (pain −0.30, 95% CI −0.07 to −0.53, moderate quality; physical function 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.64, high quality; and QoL SMD=0.27, 95% CI 0.06-0.47, high quality).
Conclusions
eHealth-supported exercise interventions resulted in less pain, improved physical function, and health-related QoL compared with no or other interventions; however, these improvements were small (SMD<0.5) and may not make a meaningful difference for individual patients. Low adherence is seen as one limiting factor of eHealth interventions. Future research should focus on participatory development of eHealth technology integrating evidence-based principles of exercise science and ways of increasing patient motivation and adherence.