Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Nov;36(11):874-886.
doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000871.

Multidisciplinary-based Rehabilitation (MBR) Compared With Active Physical Interventions for Pain and Disability in Adults With Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Máire-Bríd Casey  1 , Keith M Smart  2 , Ricardo Segurado  1 , Catherine Doody  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Multidisciplinary-based Rehabilitation (MBR) Compared With Active Physical Interventions for Pain and Disability in Adults With Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Máire-Bríd Casey et al. Clin J Pain. 2020 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of multidisciplinary-based rehabilitation (MBR) in comparison with active physical interventions for adults with chronic pain.

Materials and methods: The review was conducted in line with the recommendations provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 8 electronic databases were searched from inception to November 2018. Only randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. In total, 31 trials were identified, and most studies involved patients with chronic low back pain (25 trials). The main outcomes considered were pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up (≤3 mo after treatment), medium-term follow-up (>3 and <12 mo), and long-term follow-up (≥12 mo). The quality of the evidence was assessed according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach RESULTS:: A total of 27 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Statistically significant differences in favor of MBR were found for pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference=0.53 and 0.50) and long-term follow-up (standardized mean difference=0.56 and 0.77), but the quality of the evidence was low. There was no significant difference between MBR and active physical interventions in the medium-term follow-up.

Conclusions: Overall, the results suggest that MBR may lead to greater improvements in pain intensity and disability compared with active physical interventions, and the effects appear to be sustained in the long term. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution in light of the low quality of the evidence, with all but one trial judged to be at high risk of bias. Further research is required to assess the effectiveness of MBR for people with chronic pain conditions other than low back pain.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Treede RD, Rief W, Barke A, et al. A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11. Pain. 2015;156:1003–1007.
    1. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, et al. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10:287–333.
    1. Raftery MN, Sarma K, Murphy AW, et al. Chronic pain in the Republic of Ireland—Community prevalence, psychosocial profile and predictors of pain-related disability: results from the Prevalence, Impact and Cost of Chronic Pain (PRIME) study, Part 1. Pain. 2011;152:1096–1103.
    1. Raftery MN, Ryan P, Normand C, et al. The economic cost of chronic noncancer pain in Ireland: results from the PRIME Study, Part 2. J Pain. 2012;13:139–145.
    1. Adler R. Engel’s biopsychosocial model is still relevant today. J Psychosom Res. 2009;67:607–611.

Publication types