Front. Psychol. Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychol. 1664-1078 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.886015 Psychology Systematic Review A Mixed Comparison of Interventions for Kinesiophobia in Individuals With Musculoskeletal Pain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis Huang Jialu 1 Xu Yining 1 Xuan Rongrong 2 * Baker Julien S. 3 Gu Yaodong 1 * 1Faculty of Sports Science, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China 2The Affiliated Hospital of Medical School of Ningbo University, Ningbo, China 3Department of Sport and Physical Education, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

Edited by: Julia Maria D'Andréa Greve, University of São Paulo, Brazil

Reviewed by: Mitchell Selhorst, Nationwide Children's Hospital, United States; Alicia Fernandez-Fernandez, Nova Southeastern University, United States

 *Correspondence: Rongrong Xuan fyxuanrongrong@nbu.edu.cn Yaodong Gu guyaodong@hotmail.com

This article was submitted to Psychology for Clinical Settings, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

 29 06 2022 2022 13 886015 02 03 2022 30 05 2022 Copyright © 2022 Huang, Xu, Xuan, Baker and Gu. 2022 Huang, Xu, Xuan, Baker and Gu

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 Objective

This systematic review aims to make a mixed comparison of interventions for kinesiophobia and individuals with musculoskeletal pain.

 Methods

A comprehensive search strategy was conducted in the database of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science with the inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled design; (2) patients with musculoskeletal pain as participants; (3) treatments protocols of kinesiophobia as interventions or comparisons; (4) the score of Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK) as outcome measures. A network meta-analysis was used to synthesize the data after checking the model consistency. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.

 Results

Thirty-one studies were included in this review after a comprehensive search strategy with a low risk of bias and good consistency. According to the results of the network meta-analysis, a multi-modal treatment protocol had the highest probability to become the best choice in dealing with kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain, whereas psychological treatment protocols also showed a potentially positive effect on musculoskeletal pain-induced kinesiophobia.

 Conclusion

Multi-modal protocols could be recommended as the preferred option when dealing with kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain. However, it is still worth mentioning that there are also potentially positive therapeutic effects of psychological interventions. Since the concept of kinesiophobia is based on the fear-avoidance model, the psychological mechanism should be paid enough attention to during treatment.

 Registration Number

CRD42021286450.

 kinesiophobia musculoskeletal pain network meta-analysis systematic review non-surgical Introduction

Kinesiophobia, which was firstly proposed by Miller in 1990 based on an aspect of the fear-avoidance model, was a conceptual definition that could describe a fear of pain and an excessive, irrational, and debilitating fear to carry out a physical movement due to a feeling of vulnerability to a painful injury or re-injury (Kori et al., 2011; Vincent et al., 2013; Czuppon et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2014; Monticone et al., 2015; Urquhart et al., 2015; Zdziarski et al., 2015; Ferrándiz et al., 2016; Dvir et al., 2018; Weissenfels et al., 2019; Gholami et al., 2020; Östenberg et al., 2022; Xiang et al., 2022). The developing mechanism of kinesiophobia is multiple and complex, among which the failure and accidents in an individual's movements and the following physical and social activity are the most common. Individuals who are highly fear-avoidant believe that pain is a sign of bodily harm and that any activities causing pain are dangerous and should be avoided (Helmhout et al., 2010; Da Luz et al., 2014). Pain, which might be induced by musculoskeletal disorders, surgeries, and other traumatism, such as burns and scalds, is the most common feature in the progression of kinesiophobia (Galan-Martin et al., 2020; Riecke et al., 2020).

Kinesiophobia induced by musculoskeletal pain is most common and correlates with factors from biological, cognitive, and occupational perspectives (Luque-Suarez et al., 2019). Moreover, kinesiophobia might also occur and develop during the treatment and rehabilitation progression of musculoskeletal disorders, surgeries, and other traumatisms, which call for extra and special intervention (Archer et al., 2017).

The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) and the Kinesiophobia Causes Scale (KCS) are two common tools being used in the assessment of kinesiophobia. The KCS, which is a questionnaire consisting of 20 close-ended questions with a range of scores from 0 to 100, is usually used to diagnose and determine the causes of motor passivity. Higher scores indicate a greater fear of movement. According to previous studies and evidence-based clinical practice, the TSK is mostly recommended in the assessment of kinesiophobia. For example, a systematic review published in 2004 mentioned that the overall score of TSK showed a significant positive correlation with the severity of the physical disability, and changes in TSK scores could be used as a comparative indicator of treatment effectiveness (Heuts et al., 2004). The original version of TSK is a 17-item questionnaire with the ratings available for each item: (1) disagree; (2) partially disagree; (3) partially agree; (4) strongly agree. The score of each item varies from 1 to 4 or 0 to 3. The score of each item would be summed after the participant finishes the assessment and the overall score ranges from 17 to 68 or from 0 to 51 (Roelofs et al., 2004; Damsgard et al., 2007; Lundberg et al., 2009; Mintken et al., 2010). There are also some shortened versions of TSK with high reliabilities and validities, such as TSK-13 and TSK-11, which have been widely used in the assessment of kinesiophobia caused by pain from other disorders and diseases, such as temporomandibular disorders (TSK-TMD) and chronic low back pain (TSK-CLBP) (Woby et al., 2005; Hapidou et al., 2012; Tkachuk and Harris, 2012; Larsson et al., 2014; Neblett et al., 2016). Moreover, TSK has also been translated into many different languages and has been identified with high test-retest reliability and internal consistency.

The choice of intervention treatment protocol options is an essential part of the treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. Studies of intervention treatment protocols for some musculoskeletal disorders have also found that certain treatments have a positive effect on kinesiophobia caused by pain from these musculoskeletal disorders (Vihstadt et al., 2014; Javdaneh et al., 2020; Tagliaferri et al., 2020). However, since most of the treatment protocols for musculoskeletal disorders are mainly focused on the injured tissues, aiming to restore the physiological functional integrity of damaged tissues, the TSK scores were usually reported as a secondary outcome, and there was a limited number of studies that focus on the treatments for kinesiophobia (Lara-Palomo et al., 2013; Monticone et al., 2017; Sarig Bahat et al., 2018). A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2020, which only included randomized controlled trials that used the TSK-17 as outcome measures, identified the effect of multi-modal protocols that combined physical and psychological therapies for kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal disorders compared with uni-modal therapy of only phycological therapy or psychological therapy, demonstrating that, despite a large heterogeneity within studies, multi-modal protocols might be more effective in reducing kinesiophobia than the unimodal of only physical or psychological therapy (Xu et al., 2020). Therefore, a further review of studies in which more versions of TSK were used as outcome measures should be made to create more comprehensive, high-quality, and low-bias clinical evidence.

At present, there are numerous intervention treatment protocols for musculoskeletal disorders (Flores et al., 2017; Lenoir et al., 2019; Andersen et al., 2020). Therefore, it is not feasible to make an adjusted indirect comparison of interventions or the comparison of a mixed treatment that included every protocol. However, since some protocols just differ in operational details but are based on the same psychophysical principle and could be reclassified together, in this review, each treatment protocol in the studies included would be reclassified according to its operational characteristics and principles, and then put in the network meta-analysis.

According to previous studies, intervention treatment protocols for musculoskeletal disorders could be reclassified into passive modalities (PM), active physical exercise (APE), supervised training (ST), psychological intervention (PI), external-used devices (ED), treatment as usual (TAU), placebo treatment (Placebo), non-intervention (Blank), and multi-modal protocols (MP). In this review, the term PM is defined as therapist-led passive modalities such as acupuncture, manual massage, medication, and therapy using special equipment (laser, ultrasonic wave, magnet, thermal, etc.) (Heymans et al., 2006; Smeets et al., 2009; Ferrándiz et al., 2016; Saracoglu et al., 2020); the term APE refers to interventions in which participants perform physical training in an unsupervised environment or self-training according to a relevant program (resistance training or mobility training), relaxing, or proprioceptive training (Helmhout et al., 2004; Koumantakis et al., 2005; Gustavsson and von Koch, 2006; Pool et al., 2010; Nassif et al., 2011; Monticone et al., 2014; Miyamoto et al., 2016; Hotta et al., 2020); ST refers to physical training by the patient under the supervision of physiotherapists and caregivers (Hott et al., 2020; Meirelles et al., 2020). The term PI refers to treatments conducted by a professional psychologist or psychologist such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), meditation, and psychological interview (Lopez-Lopez et al., 2015; Monticone et al., 2016, 2018; Zdziarski-Horodyski et al., 2020; Sato et al., 2021), the term ED means the treatment protocol in which the participants would be asked to wear non-invasive therapy devices such as Kinesio tape, orthoses, or sportswear for a long-term (Castro-Sánchez et al., 2012), and the term MP refers to treatment protocols which include two or more protocols mentioned above, for example, physical exercise using VR devices or laser devices. It is important to note that two or more treatments of the same type are not part of a multi-modal protocols program, such as the use of Pilates combined with stretching body exercises in a sports modality (Meijer et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2019; Bahat et al., 2020; Gulsen et al., 2020; Tejera et al., 2020; Javdaneh et al., 2021).

Moreover, the category “Blank” in the reclassification of this review refers to keeping normal life or only receiving patient education with basic health advice (Nassif et al., 2011), whereas the category “TAU” refers to treatment as usual or usual care from nursing staff, and the category “Placebo” refers to sham therapy protocols such as sham manipulation and sham sustained natural apophyseal glides.

The objective of this systematic review is to make a mixed comparison of intervention treatment protocols on kinesiophobia for individuals with musculoskeletal pain by reclassifying treatment protocols from different perspectives according to the change in TSK scores and then to explore the most potential protocols.

 Methods Protocol and Registration

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009). The eligibility and exclusion criteria and the search strategy were made and agreed upon by two authors (Jialu Huang and Yining Xu) with a priori to minimize bias. The PROSPERO Registration Number of this review is CRD42021286450.

 Eligibility Criteria (PICOS)

The eligibility criteria for inclusion were: (1) randomized controlled trials; (2) patients with musculoskeletal pain as participants; (3) intervention treatment protocols; (4) TAU, Placebo, or Blank protocols as comparisons; (5) the score of TSK as outcome measures.

 Exclusion Criteria

Studies were excluded if: (1) participants were patients with pain induced by non-musculoskeletal disorders, such as burns, traumatism, or surgeries; (2) intervention protocols contained surgical or invasive treatment such as surgeries and injections; (3) published abstract without full text or lack of data; (4) outcome measures did not correspond with those in the eligibility criteria; (5) not a randomized controlled trial, such as a cross-sectional study, case report, cohort study, and cross-over trial in a single group.

 Search Strategy

A comprehensive reproducible search strategy had been performed on the databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science from January 1990 to December 2021. Reference lists were also searched in all screened studies for identifying gray literature, which refers to the study that had not been openly published. If the data were insufficient, the authors were contacted and requested for missing data. The search terms used in each database were as follows: (1) in PubMed and Embase, the search term was “(kinesiophobia) AND [(randomized) OR (randomized)] [Titile/Abstract]”; (2) in Web of Science, the search term was “(AB kinesiophobia) AND (AB randomized OR randomized).”

 Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias was assessed by two independent authors (Rongrong Xuan and Julien Baker) according to The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (Armijo-Olivo et al., 2012). Every disagreement was discussed, and an independent arbitrator (Yaodong Gu) was invited when there was an agreement that could not be met.

 Data Extraction and Synthesis

All searched studies were imported into EndNote 20 (Thomson Reuters, Carlsbad, CA, USA) for further screening. Data were extracted by two independent authors (Jialu Huang and Yining Xu). Any discrepancies would be solved by an independent arbitrator (Yaodong Gu).

Detailed information of included studies was summarized and information such as participants' characteristics (age, gender, and type of musculoskeletal disorder) and details of intervention protocols with their reclassification were collected and put into an extraction sheet of summary of included studies. The data of each trial, which involved the version of TSK it used, sample size (N), mean value (Mean) with its standard deviation (SD) of each group in baseline, and every recording point would be extracted in an independent sheet for the data pre-processing.

 Data Pre-processing

Data pre-processing and analysis were conducted by two independent authors (Jialu Huang and Yining Xu). Microsoft Office Excel (Version 16.0, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) was used to pre-process the original data by transferring all the outcomes into a uniform unit according to the clinical criteria. The Aggregate Data Drug Information System (ADDIS, Version 1.16.8, Produced by Drugis.org) was used to pool data into the network meta-analysis.

 Network Meta-Analysis

Since different versions of TSK have different total scores, the effect size of the network meta-analysis were presented in mean differences (MD) of the percentage of TSK score change. A network geometry was provided to display all kinds of interventions and key information such as the type of intervention represented by each node, direct comparisons between each pair of interventions represented by the edges, and the arms of each comparison which are represented by the number on every edge.

The random-effects standard deviations were calculated under both consistency and inconsistency models and compared with each other to identify if there was inconsistency within interventions. If there were closed loops in the intervention structure, the inconsistency of the evidence must be assessed. Moreover, while the results are easier to interpret, it requires a separate model to be run for each node to be split. The node-splitting analysis is an alternative method to assess inconsistency in network meta-analysis which assessed whether direct and indirect evidence on a specific node (the split node) agrees (Rouse et al., 2017).

The consistency model was used if there was neither closed-loop nor split node in the intervention structure, the random-effects standard deviations in the consistency and inconsistency models were identical, or the identified discrepancy could be determined by examining the calculating a respective Bayesian p-value in the node-splitting analysis was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). Otherwise, the inconsistency model would be applied (Rouse et al., 2017).

When the consistency model was applied, the results were shown in the rank probability plot. The sum of all rank probabilities is 1, both within a rank over treatments and within a treatment over ranks. Besides, a league table was provided after the model of data analysis had been determined, reporting results that represented the mean difference in the column-defining treatment compared with the row-defining treatment. If the calculation was based on the inconsistency model, only a league table was provided after the model of data analysis had been determined (Catala-Lopez et al., 2014).

 Results Search Strategy and Information Extraction

Thirty-one studies were included in the final analysis (Beltran-Alacreu et al., 2015; Hidalgo et al., 2015; Pires et al., 2015; Sarig Bahat et al., 2015; Castro-Sánchez et al., 2016; Pillastrini et al., 2016; Cruz-Díaz et al., 2017; Martínez-Cervera et al., 2017; Yilmaz Yelvar et al., 2017; Birinci et al., 2019; Gholami et al., 2020). The identification process is shown by a flow diagram in Figure 1 (Moher et al., 2009). The information of all included studies is presented in Table 1. All original data are provided in the Supplementary File.

The PRISMA 2009 flow diagram of the search and study selection.

Detailed information of included studies.

References Participants Interventions Outcome (TSK Version)
Type of pain Age Gender (female/all) Treatment Abstract of protocol Category
Gustavsson and von Koch (2006) Long-lasting neck pain 39.14 28/29 Applied Relaxation The program contained 7 1.5-h sessions, over a period of 7 weeks. The sessions consisted of applied relaxation training, 4 body awareness exercises, and information about pain and stress management. MP TSK-17
Treatment as usual 11 individual sessions spread over 20 weeks. TAU
Nassif et al. (2011) Chronic lower back pain 45.23 32/75 Supervised active physical exercise program 60 min of physiotherapy and physical exercise 3 times a week for 2 months with full supervision by an in-house physiotherapist and physical educator. MP TSK-13
No treatment No direct intervention. Blank
Castro-Sánchez et al. (2012) Chronic non-specific low back pain 48.50 40/59 Kinesio tape Standardized Kinesio Tape application in sitting position. 4 blue-I placed at 25% tension overlapping in a star shape over the point of maximum pain in the lumbar area, 1 week. ED TSK-17
Placebo Kinesio ape A sham Kinesio Tape application, consisting of a single I-strip of the same tape applied transversely immediately above the point of maximum lumbar pain participants wore the tape, 1 week. Placebo
Lara-Palomo et al. (2013) Chronic non-specific low back pain 48.50 41/61 Electro-massage Electro-massage, over the lumbar and dorsal–lumbar region, 30 min at stimulation intensity of 30–50 mA, 2/week, 20 sessions. PM TSK-17
Manual massage Superficial manual massage session on the lower back area, 20 min, 2/week, 20 sessions. PM
Monticone et al. (2014) Chronic low back pain 57.80 11/20 Spinal stabilizing exercises in addition to usual-care rehabilitation Spinal stabilizing exercises in addition to usual-care rehabilitation (passive mobilization, stretching, and postural control), 60-min cognitive–behavioral sessions, 1/week, 8 weeks. MP TSK-13
Usual-care rehabilitation Routine care rehabilitation provided by the physiotherapist includes passive spinal movement, stretching, muscle strengthening and postural control. 60-min motor training sessions twice a week for 8 weeks. ST
Birinci et al. (2019) Posttraumatic stiffness of the elbow 41.34 24/40 PNF stretching hold-relax proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching combined with a structured exercise programme for posttraumatic stiffness of the elbow, 2/week, 6 weeks. MP TSK-17
Static stretching Static stretching combined with a structured exercise programme for posttraumatic stiffness of the elbow 0.2/week, 6 weeks. MP
Beltran-Alacreu et al. (2015) Non-specific chronic neck pain 41.40 35/45 Manual therapy and therapeutic patient education Therapeutic patient education in addition to manual treatment methods (specific passive movement of the cervical facet joints, overall movement of the cervical spine, and high-speed technology in the back area), 8 times in 4 weeks. MP TSK-11
Manual therapy, therapeutic patient education, and a therapeutic exercise Therapeutic patient education, therapeutic exercise, in addition to manual treatment methods (specific passive movement of the cervical facet joints, overall movement of the cervical spine, and high-speed technology in the back area), 8 times in 4 weeks. MP
Manual therapy experimental Specific passive movements in the facet cervical joints, global mobilization of the cervical spine, and high-velocity technique in the dorsal region. 8 times in 4 weeks. PM
Hidalgo et al. (2015) Non-specific low back pain 39.25 16/32 Real lumbar Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides Real lumbar Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides, 3 sets, 6 repetitions. PM TSK-17
Sham lumbar Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides Sham lumbar Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides, 3 sets, 6 repetitions. Placebo
Pires et al. (2015) Chronic low back pain 51.00 40/62 Aquatic exercise and pain neurophysiology education Water exercise programme under the supervision of a therapist, 6-week program consisting of 12 sessions + 2 sessions of pain neurophysiology education. MP TSK-13
Aquatic exercise Water exercise programme under the supervision of a therapist, 6-week program consisting of 12 sessions. ST
Sarig Bahat et al. (2015) Chronic neck pain 40.90 22/32 Kinematic training Home neck training method without physiotherapy supervision, 30 min each time, 4–6 times total, 5 weeks. APE TSK-17
Kinematic and VR training Neck training method with physiotherapist supervision and VR device, 30 min each time, 4–6 times total, 5 weeks. MP
Priore et al. (2020) Patellofemoral pain 22.42 Unknown Knee bracing Participants received instructions to use the knee brace for 2 weeks while performing activities of daily living or sports that had previously resulted in knee pain. ED TSK-17
Minimal intervention Participants included in this group were instructed to do not use any type of orthoses, brace or bandage in the lower limbs for the period they were involved in the study. The knee brace was offered for the participants of this group after studies completion. Blank
Castro-Sanchez et al. (2016) Chronic low back pain 45.00 39/62 Spinal manipulation Side-lying pelvic girdle manipulation+Side-lying lumbar spine manipulation+Thoracic manipulation. PM TSK-17
Functional technique Patients in this group received a functional technique intervention targeted at the lumbosacral junction. PM
Castro-Sánchez et al. (2016) Chronic non-specific low back pain 51.50 42/64 Craniosacral therapy 50-min Physical therapy, 1/week, 10 weeks. PM TSK-17
Classic massage 30-min Classic massage, 1/week, 10 weeks. PM
Kurt et al. (2016) Patellofemoral pain syndrome 31.27 49/84 Kinesio tape 2 days of Kinesio tape. ED TSK-17
Placebo Kinesio tape 2 days of placebo Kinesio Tape. Placebo
Monticone et al. (2016) Chronic low back pain 53.50 90/150 Cognitive-behavior therapy and exercise 1-h group-based cognitive-behavior therapy and physical training, 2/week, 5 weeks. MP TSK-13
Traditional exercises Patients engage in active physical activity, 1-h, 2/week, 5 weeks. APE
Pillastrini et al. (2016) Chronic Non-specific Neck Pain 47.44 71/93 Global postural re-education and manual therapy Manipulative massage and global postural re-education supervised by a physiotherapist, 1-h, 1–2/week, 9 times total. MP TSK-11
Reference group Manipulative massage under the supervision of a physiotherapist, 30 min, 9 times total. PM
Cruz-Díaz et al. (2017) Chronic Low Back Pain on pain 36.25 63/98 Pilates training Conscious patient-initiated Pilates mat training, 50-min, 2/week, 12 weeks. APE TSK-17
Pilates training on mat Conscious and active Pilates equipment training by the patient, 50-min, 2/week, 12 weeks. APE
No treatment No treatment. Blank
Martínez-Cervera et al. (2017) Lateral epicondylalgia 51.94 13/24 Positive expectations Manual therapy of mobilization with movements under positive expectations, 3/week, 48 h total. PM TSK-11
Neutral expectations Manual therapy of mobilization with movements under neutral expectations, 3/week, 48 h total. PM
Monticone et al. (2017) Chronic neck pain 52.90 121/170 The multidisciplinary group 60-min physical training and 60-min psychologist interview/week, 10 weeks, and asked the patients to repeat the exercises at home. MP TSK-13
General physiotherapy The patient initiates 10 h of exercises including muscle strengthening, regional stretching and spinal mobilization. APE
Yilmaz Yelvar et al. (2017) Non-specific low-back pain 49.55 28/44 Traditional physical therapy Medication under the supervision of a physiotherapist. PM TSK-17
Virtual walking integrated physiotherapy 15 min of intensive training with Hotpack and 15 min of ultrasound deep heating under the supervision of a physiotherapist. 5 sessions/week, 2 weeks in clinic, requested at home, 3 sessions/day. MP
Monticone et al. (2018) Chronic neck pain 48.60 17/30 Normal cognitive-behavior therapy and physical exercise 1 week, 4 times of 60-min sessions of cognitive-behavioral therapy followed by 10 times 60-min sessions of exercises (2 sessions/week, 5 weeks). MP TSK-13
Cognitive-behavior therapy based on TSK and physical exercise 1 week, 4 times of 60-min sessions of cognitive-behavioral therapy based on scores of Tampa scale of kinesiophobia followed by 10 times 60-min sessions of exercises, 2 sessions/week, 5 weeks total. MP
Pardo et al. (2018) Chronic low back pain 47.05 44/56 Therapeutic exercise The physiotherapist supervises the patient in a therapeutic exercise programme consisting of movement control, stretching and aerobic exercises, 4–6 participants, 30–50 min 2 times/month, 3months. ST TSK-11
Therapeutic exercise and pain neurophysiology education The physiotherapist supervises the patient in a therapeutic exercise programme consisting of movement control, stretching and aerobic exercises+ pain neurophysiology education, 4–6 participants, 30–50 min, 2 times/month, 3 months. MP
Sarig Bahat et al. (2018) Chronic neck pain 47.42 63/90 Training with VR devices Training with VR devices, 5 min/time, 4 times a day, 4 times a week, 4 weeks. MP TSK-17
Training with head-laser beam devices Training with head-laser beam devices, 5 min/time, 4 times a day, 4 times a week, 4 weeks. MP
No treatment No treatment. Blank
Hott et al. (2019) Patellofemoral Pain 27.60 73/113 Traditional knee-focused exercise Patients performed supine straight leg raises, supine terminal knee extensions, and mini squats with back supported against the wall, 3 sets of 10 repetitions, 3/week for 6 weeks, under the supervision of a physiotherapist. ST TSK-13
Hip-focused exercise Patients performed lateral hip abduction, external hip rotation and prone hip abduction in 3 sets of 10 sessions, 3 sessions/week for 6 weeks under the supervision of a physiotherapist. ST
Free physical activity The physiotherapist supervises the patient's active choice of free movement for 6 weeks. ST
Gholami et al. (2020) Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament 32.30 2/20 Kinesio tape 5-cm Kinesio Tape length with 50% elongation. ED TSK-17
Placebo KT group Shame taping without tension in the tape. Placebo
Gulsen et al. (2020) Fibromyalgia 41.38 16/16 Combined exercise Patients initiate comprehensive exercise training, including 30 min of aerobic training and 30 min of Pilates training. 2/week, 8 weeks. APE TSK-17
Combined exercise with VR devices A combined exercise training with VR consisting of 30-min aerobic training and 30-min strengthening and flexibility exercises, 2/week, 8 weeks. MP
Hott et al. (2020) Patellofemoral pain 27.60 73/112 Traditional knee-focused exercise Straight-leg raises in the supine position, supine terminal knee extensions, and a mini-squat with the back supported against the wall, 3 sets, 10 repetitions, 3/week, 6 weeks were performed for 6 weeks. APE TSK-13
Hip-focused exercise Side-lying hip abduction, hip external rotation, and prone hip extension, 3 sets, 10 repetitions, 3/week, 6 weeks were performed for 6 weeks APE
Free physical activity Some physical education activities under the supervision of a physiotherapist. ST
Meirelles et al. (2020) Chronic non-specific low back pain 48.00 28/38 Active Control Therapeutic exercises under the supervision of a physiotherapist, 2/week, 10 weeks. ST TSK-17
Active Control +Osteopathic Manipulation Physiotherapist intervention with active control group and orthopedic manipulation techniques with OMTG, 30–45 min, 1/week, 5 weeks. MP
Zdziarski-Horodyski et al. (2020) Orthopedic trauma 43.00 40/99 Integrative care Routine care combined with a social self-support programme guided by orthopedic surgeons and care teams in 1 year. MP TSK-11
Usual care Regular medication under the supervision of a physiotherapist in 1 year. PM
Selhorst et al. (2021) Patellofemoral pain 14.80 43/65 Psychologically Informed Intervention The experimental group watched a short psychologically informed video (8 min and 30 s) targeting beliefs about pain related fear and pain catastrophizing. PI TSK-11
Control video Participants in the control group watched a video equal in length to the psychologically informed video (8 min and 30 s). The control video discussed basic anatomy of the lower extremity and the theorized biomedical factors involved in PFP. TAU
Gül et al. (2021) Chronic low back pain 42.30 26/31 Physiotherapy combined with TNE A physiotherapy programme of 15 sessions supervised by a physiotherapist and a home exercise programme for their 3 weeks. MP TSK-17
Physiotherapy alone A 15-session physiotherapy programme supervised by a physiotherapist for 3 weeks. PM

TSK, Tampa scale of kinesiophobia; APE, Active Physical Exercise; ST, Supervised training; PI, Psychological Intervention; MP, Multi-modal Protocols; PM, Passive Modalities; ED, External-used Devices; TAU, Treatment as Usual.

 Risk of Bias

The risk of bias for the 31 included studies was assessed in this review and the results are shown in Figure 2. Adequate results were obtained for the randomization and concealment methods of the participants mentioned in the studies. Eight studies adequately described participants and staff as blind, and a total of 21 studies described assessors as blind. The risk of attrition bias was low (low in all studies), the risk of selection bias was low (low in all studies), and the risk of reporting bias was low (low in all studies).

The result of the risk of bias assessment. (A) Risk of bias summary; (B) Risk of bias graph.

 Network Meta-Analysis Network Geometries

The network geometries showed all categories of treatment protocols, providing information such as the type of treatment represented by each node, the direct comparisons between each pair of interventions represented by the lines, and the arms of each trial represented by the number on the edges. The network geometries of the interventions are presented in Figure 3.

Network geometry of the interventions (APE, Active Physical Exercise; ST, Supervised Training; PI, Psychological Intervention; MP, Multi-modal Protocols; PM, Passive Modalities; ED, External-used Devices; TAU, Treatment as Usual; These figures represent the number of studies that have made direct comparisons between interventions).

 Comparisons of Random Effects Standard Deviations

The results of the random effects standard deviation calculations in both the consistency model and inconsistency model of each outcome measure are provided in Table 2. According to the results, the random effects standard deviations of the consistency modal were identical. Therefore, the analysis under the consistency model had a good validity.

Random effect standard deviation and 95% confidence interval value of the agreement model and the inconsistency model.

Random effects standard deviation Median (95% CI)
Consistency model 4.94 (3.38, 7.78)
Inconsistency model 4.54 (2.83, 7.48)
Results of Network Meta-Analysis

Table 3 shows the league tables of the network geometries, and the ranking of measures and probabilities is provided in Table 4 and Figure 4. Since a lower score of TSK is regarded as better, the treatment protocol in Rank 1 has the highest probability to be the last treatment choice, whereas that in Rank 9 has the lowest probability to be the first treatment choice.

League tables of the network geometries.

APE
3.31 (−3.36, 10.16) Blank
5.62 (−4.51, 15.49) 2.26 (−6.44, 11.23) ED
6.76 (1.90, 11.38)* 3.49 (−2.81, 9.49) 1.20 (−8.15, 10.45) MP
2.62(−14.01, 19.26) −0.75(−17.84, 16.61) −2.93 (−21.86, 15.20) −4.13(−20.10, 12.03) PI
2.34 (−4.54, 9.03) −0.92 (−8.63, 6.41) −3.20 (−12.66, 5.91) −4.47 (−9.26, 0.43) −0.26 (−17.26, 16.30) PM
3.31 (−7.22, 13.37) −0.05 (−9.43, 9.08) −2.33 (−8.27, 3.45) −3.53(−12.89, 5.75) 0.63 (−17.98, 19.11) 0.83 (−7.99, 10.04) Placebo
0.62(−5.68, 6.80) −2.63 (−10.50, 4.91) −4.85 (−15.58, 5.40) −6.10 (−11.27, −1.10)* −1.93 (−18.84, 14.39) −1.74 (−8.90, 5.42) −2.58 (−13.38, 7.87) ST
3.56(−9.03, 16.29) 0.30 (−13.13, 13.48) −1.99 (−16.93, 13.02) −3.22 (−14.97, 8.70) 0.93 (−9.91, 11.65) 1.20 (−11.44, 14.15) 0.32(−14.77, 15.47) 2.87(−9.95, 15.83) TAU

APE, Active Physical Exercise; ED, External-used Devices; MP, Multi-modal Protocols; PI, Psychological Intervention; PM, Passive Modalities; ST, Supervised training; TAU, Treatment as Usual.

*p <0.05.

Ranking of measures and probabilities.

Treatment Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7 Rank 8 Rank 9
Active physical exercise 0.25 0.24 0.20 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00
Blank 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.10 0.04
Multi-modal protocols 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.32
Passive modalities 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.01
Supervised training 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.15 0.11 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.00
External-used devices 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.18 0.25
Psychological intervention 0.26 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.19
Treatment as usual 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.16 0.13
Placebo 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.05

Ranking of measures and probabilities (APE, Active Physical Exercise; ST, Supervised training; PI, Psychological Intervention; MP, Multi-modal Protocols; PM, Passive Modalities; ED, External-used Devices; TAU, Treatment as Usual).

According to the result, MP had the highest potential probability to be the best choice in treating kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain (0.32 in Rank 9 and 0.25 in Rank 8) with a statistically significant advantage in the comparison with APE (P < 0.05), whereas ED might have the highest potential probability to be the second-best treatment choice with a probability of 0.25 in Rank 9 and 0.18 in Rank 8. The psychological intervention probability is the third-best treatment choice with a probability of 0.19 in Rank 9 and 0.10 in Rank 8. Corresponding with the results of the included studies, TAU and Blank, which were usually set as interventions in the control group, have a high potential probability in Ranks 1 and 2. Nevertheless, APE has the highest potential probability in Ranks 1 and 2.

 Discussion

The objective of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to make a mixed comparison of intervention treatment protocols for kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain. After comparing 9 different categories of treatment protocols, the primary findings are as follows. First, multi-modal protocols have the highest potential probability to be the best choice in treating kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain and have a statistically significant advantage in the comparison with active physical exercise and supervised training. Second, wearing an external-used device have the highest potential probability to be the second-best treatment choice. Third, keeping active in physical exercise might not be a wise choice when the patient has been diagnosed with kinesiophobia induced by musculoskeletal pain.

Multi-model treatment protocols seem to have the highest potential probability to be the best treatment choice. This result could be supported by high-level clinical evidence. Apart from the systematic and meta-analysis mentioned in the introduction section of this review (Xu et al., 2020), many randomized controlled trials concluded a similar result to support the clinical practice of multi-disciplinary interventions for kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain. For example, a pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in 2020 claimed that a multi-model treatment protocol combined with nature activity therapy and usual care could be an effective co-adjuvant multicomponent treatment for improving fibromyalgia-related symptoms (Serrat et al., 2020), and another randomized controlled trial conducted in 2013 demonstrated that a long-term multidisciplinary treatment program was superior to the exercise program in reducing disability, fear-avoidance beliefs and pain, as well as enhancing the quality of life of patients with chronic low back pain. The effects were clinically tangible and lasted for at least 1 year after the program ended (Monticone et al., 2013). Moreover, from the non-clinical perspective, a review conducted in 2006, which determined the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of return-to-work outpatient multidisciplinary treatment programs for sick-listed workers with non-specific upper extremity musculoskeletal complaints, found that multidisciplinary treatment affects individuals positively, but shows no significant difference in cost-effectiveness on the societal level as compared to usual care (Meijer et al., 2006).

The multi-modal treatment protocols included in the review referred to approaches from two or more of the following perspectives, which were physiological, and psychological perspectives. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that the effect of multi-modal treatment protocols was better than that of treatment protocols from only a physiological perspective. This result is correspondent with some previous studies. For example, in a review published in 2014, the therapist performed spinal stabilization exercises based on cognitive behavioral therapy for the patient, and the results showed that spinal stabilization exercises based on cognitive behavioral therapy could bring more advantages to the patient when they were performing non-spinal motor tasks such as walking (Monticone et al., 2014). Another review conducted in 2018 demonstrated that patients with chronic low back pain who were given a pain education session by a psychologist after supervised training by a physiotherapist could feel less pain than those who only had supervised training (Pardo et al., 2018). The results of the network meta-analysis also showed that all multi-modal treatment protocols of the included studies contained treatments from a psychological perspective, indicating that psychological intervention has a potentially positive effect on the kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain. There is one review included in this study that compares psychological interventions with TAU and finds a significant advantage of psychological intervention over TAU in reducing the severity of kinesiophobia (Selhorst et al., 2021). The results of some previous studies identified the advantage of psychological treatment protocols in treating kinesiophobia induced by musculoskeletal pain and demonstrated that psychological treatment could relieve kinesiophobia caused by physical disorders and improve quality of life (Goudie et al., 2018; Innes et al., 2018; Helminen et al., 2020; Serrat et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2022). For example, a review published in 2016, which has also been included in this systematic review, demonstrated that group-based and task-oriented exercises could reduce disability, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, and enhance the quality of life of individuals with chronic low back pain (Monticone et al., 2016). Moreover, a review by Wicksell's team, which is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, resulted in that cognitive behavior therapy could improve the functioning and life satisfaction of people with chronic pain (Wicksell et al., 2010). The potential mechanism of psychological treatments might come from self-efficacy, a review conducted in 2020 shows both pain self-efficacy and negatively charged emotion and expectations toward pain are important factors when dealing with musculoskeletal injured patients (Sinikallio et al., 2014). However, some previous studies concluded different views, a review conducted in 2006 compared the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy pain management approach using cognitive-behavioral principles with a commonly used method of passive modalities, and identified that the latter approach resulted in higher patient satisfaction overall but the former could be more cost-effective (Moffett et al., 2006). The heterogeneity of the results might be caused by the different expectations of patients when they are selecting treatment protocols. Future studies should compare the effects of different psychological intervention protocols in a particular population to identify the effectiveness of kinesiophobia.

Besides, wearing an externally used device has a high potential probability to be the second-best treatment choice. There are 4 relevant studies included in this review, and 3 studies are randomized controlled trials about the effect of Kinesio tape. For example, a review in 2012 explored the effect of Kinesio tape adhered in the lumbar area, finding that a 1-week treatment of Kinesio tape had a positive effect on relieving pain than the placebo tape (Castro-Sánchez et al., 2012). A review conducted in 2016 evaluated the short-term effects of Kinesio tape on joint position sense, isokinetic measurements, kinesiophobia, symptoms, and functional limitations in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome, demonstrating that, although short-term Kinesio tape application could not increase hamstring muscle strength, it still could improve joint position sense, pain, kinesiophobia, symptoms, and daily limitations (Kurt et al., 2016). The positive effect of the Kinesio tape application has been identified by several previous studies (Coombes et al., 2016; Karran et al., 2017; Louw et al., 2017; Takacs et al., 2017); however, most of these studies only identified the short-term effect of Kinesio tape. Further studies should identify the long-term effect of Kinesio tape and that of other kinds of externally used therapy devices.

What should also be noticed among the results of the network meta-analysis is that, for the treatment of kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain, active physical exercise might not be recommended with the lowest potential, which seems even lower than placebo, within the 9 treatment protocol categories. The reason might come from two possible aspects. First, active physical exercise might lead to secondary injury and further pain. Second, this result might be caused by the heterogeneity of intervention protocols in these included studies. Therefore, the interpretation of this result should be cautious, and future studies should explore the effect of active physical exercise on kinesiophobia without covariate interference.

Within all 9 categories of treatment protocols, TAU and Blank, which were usually set as interventions in the control group, have a low potential probability to have a positive effect on kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain. It is because treatment as usual and no-treatment, themselves are not clinical treatment protocols, only being set as interventions in control groups in the included studies. Besides, this result could also indicate that kinesiophobia might not be a self-limiting disease whose symptoms would not resolve themselves over time. It means that if patients with kinesiophobia do not carry out a particular treatment, only usual care would not be effective on their symptoms.

The primary limitation of this systematic review is that there is a limited number of studies that focus on the treatments for kinesiophobia, leading to a lack of arms in some direct intervention comparisons. For example, there is no direct comparison between psychological intervention and externally used devices in the network geometry. Last but not least, the score of TSK is usually reported as a secondary outcome, resulting in publication bias to some extent (Bennell et al., 2020; Öztürk et al., 2021; Serrat et al., 2021).

 Conclusion

Multi-modal protocols could be recommended as the preferred option when dealing with kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain. However, it is still worth mentioning that there are also potentially positive therapeutic effects of psychological interventions. Since the concept of kinesiophobia is based on the fear-avoidance model, the psychological mechanism should be paid enough attention to during treatment.

 Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

 Author Contributions

JH conceived the study design, collected and analyzed data, and drafted the manuscript. YX and RX participated in the design of the study, collected, and analyzed data. YG, RX, and JB conceived the study design, assisted in revising the manuscript, and reviewed the first and final versions of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript.

 Funding

This study was supported by Zhejiang Province Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project (No. 2018KY710), Ningbo Public Welfare Science and Technology Plan Project (No. 2019C50095), Health Youth Technical Talent Cultivation Special Fund Project (2020SWSQNGG-01), Ningbo Medical Science and Technology Plan (2020Y14), and Young Cultivation Fund Project of the Affiliated of School of Medicine of Ningbo University (FYQM-KY-202003).

 Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.886015/full#supplementary-material

 References Andersen T. E. Ellegaard H. Schiottz-Christensen B. Mejldal A. Manniche C. (2020). Somatic experiencing for patients with low back pain and comorbid posttraumatic stress symptoms - a randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 11, 1797306. 10.1080/20008198.2020.179730633029333 Archer K. R. Devin C. J. Vanston S. W. Koyama T. Phillips S. E. Mathis S. L. . (2017). Cognitive-behavioral-based physical therapy for patients with chronic pain undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J. Pain 18, 477. 10.1016/j.jpain.2017.02.42528363630 Armijo-Olivo S. Stiles C. R. Hagen N. A. Biondo P. D. Cummings G. G. (2012). Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 18, 12–18. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x20698919 Bahat H. S. Hadar D. Treleaven J. (2020). Predictors for positive response to home kinematic training in chronic neck pain. J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 43, 779–790. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2019.12.00832829943 Beltran-Alacreu H. López-de-Uralde-Villanueva I. Fernández-Carnero J. La Touche R. (2015). Manual therapy, therapeutic patient education, and therapeutic exercise, an effective multimodal treatment of nonspecific chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 94(10 Suppl. 1), 887–897. 10.1097/phm.000000000000029325888653 Bennell K. Nelligan R. K. Schwartz S. Kasza J. Kimp A. Crofts S. J. C. . (2020). Behavior change text messages for home exercise adherence in knee osteoarthritis: randomized trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 22, 868–878. 10.2196/2174932985994 Birinci T. Razak Ozdincler A. Altun S. Kural C. (2019). A structured exercise programme combined with proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching or static stretching in posttraumatic stiffness of the elbow: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 33, 241–252. 10.1177/026921551880288630304958 Castro-Sanchez A. M. Lara-Palomo I. C. Mataran-Penarrocha G. A. Fernandez-De-Las-Penas C. Saavedra-Hernandez M. Cleland J. . (2016). Short-term effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy versus functional technique in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 16, 302–312. 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.08.05726362233 Castro-Sánchez A. M. Lara-Palomo I. C. Matarán-Peñarrocha G. A. Fernández-Sánchez M. Sánchez-Labraca N. Arroyo-Morales M. (2012). Kinesio taping reduces disability and pain slightly in chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised trial. J. Physiother. 58, 89–95. 10.1016/s1836-9553(12)70088-722613238 Castro-Sánchez A. M. Lara-Palomo I. C. Matarán-Peñarrocha G. A. Saavedra-Hernández M. Pérez-Mármol J. M. Aguilar-Ferrándiz M. E. (2016). Benefits of craniosacral therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 22, 650–657. 10.1089/acm.2016.006827347698 Catala-Lopez F. Tobias A. Cameron C. Moher D. Hutton B. (2014). Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction. Rheumatol. Int. 34, 1489–1496. 10.1007/s00296-014-2994-224691560 Coombes B. K. Wiebusch M. Heales L. Stephenson A. Vicenzino B. (2016). Isometric exercise above but not below an individual's pain threshold influences pain perception in people with lateral epicondylalgia. Clin. J. Pain 32, 1069–1075. 10.1097/AJP.000000000000036526889612 Cruz-Díaz D. Bergamin M. Gobbo S. Martínez-Amat A. Hita-Contreras F. (2017). Comparative effects of 12 weeks of equipment based and mat Pilates in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain on pain, function and transversus abdominis activation. A randomized controlled trial. Complement. Ther. Med. 33, 72–77. 10.1016/j.ctim.2017.06.00428735829 Czuppon S. Racette B. A. Klein S. E. Harris-Hayes M. (2014). Variables associated with return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Br. J. Sports Med. 48, 356–364. 10.1136/bjsports-2012-09178624124040 Da Luz M. A. Costa L. O. P. Fuhro F. F. Manzoni A. C. T. Oliveira N. T. B. Cabral C. M. N. (2014). Effectiveness of mat pilates or equipment-based pilates exercises in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Phys. Ther. 94, 623–631. 10.2522/ptj.2013027724435105 Damsgard E. Fors T. Anke A. Roe C. (2007). The Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia: a Rasch analysis of its properties in subjects with low back and more widespread pain. J. Rehabil. Med. 39, 672–678. 10.2340/16501977-012517999003 Dvir Y. Levant A. Efimov D. Polyakov A. Perruquetti W. (2018). Acceleration of finite-time stable homogeneous systems. Int. J. Robust. Nonlin Cont. 28, 1757–1777. 10.1002/rnc.3984 Ferrándiz M. E. A. Nijs J. Gidron Y. Roussel N. Vanderstraeten R. Van Dyck D. . (2016). Auto-targeted neurostimulation is not superior to placebo in chronic low back pain: a fourfold blind randomized clinical trial. Pain Phys. 19, E707–E719. 10.36076/ppj/2019.19.E70727389114 Flores C. Balius R. Álvarez G. Buil M. A. Varela L. Cano C. . (2017). Efficacy and tolerability of peritendinous hyaluronic acid in patients with supraspinatus tendinopathy: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Sports Med Open 3, 22. 10.1186/s40798-017-0089-928585109 Galan-Martin M. A. Montero-Cuadrado F. Lluch-Girbes E. Coca-López M. C. Mayo-Iscar A. Cuesta-Vargas A. (2020). Pain neuroscience education and physical therapeutic exercise for patients with chronic spinal pain in spanish physiotherapy primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Med. 9, 1201. 10.3390/jcm904120132331323 Gholami M. Kamali F. Mirzeai M. Motealleh A. Shamsi M. (2020). Effects of kinesio tape on kinesiophobia, balance and functional performance of athletes with post anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a pilot clinical trial. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 12, 57. 10.1186/s13102-020-00203-x32944254 Goudie S. Dixon D. McMillan G. Ring D. McQueen M. (2018). Is use of a psychological workbook associated with improved disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand scores in patients with distal radius fracture? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 476, 832–845. 10.1007/s11999.000000000000009529406451 Gül H. Erel S. Toraman N. F. (2021). Physiotherapy combined with therapeutic neuroscience education versus physiotherapy alone for patients with chronic low back pain: a pilot, randomized-controlled trial. Turk. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 67, 283. 10.5606/tftrd.2021.555634870114 Gulsen C. P. T. M. Soke F. P. T. P. Eldemir K. P. T. M. Apaydin Y. P. T. M. Ozkul C. P. T. P. Guclu-Gunduz A. P. T. P. . (2020). Effect of fully immersive virtual reality treatment combined with exercise in fibromyalgia patients: a randomized controlled trial. Assistive Technol. 34, 1–8. 10.1080/10400435.2020.177290032543290 Gustavsson C. von Koch L. (2006). Applied relaxation in the treatment of long-lasting neck pain: a randomized controlled pilot study. J. Rehabil. Med. 38, 100–107. 10.1080/1650197051004402516546766 Hapidou E. G. O'Brien M. A. Pierrynowski M. R. de Las Heras E. Patel M. Patla T. (2012). Fear and avoidance of movement in people with chronic pain: psychometric properties of the 11-item tampa scale for kinesiophobia (TSK-11). Physiother. Can. 64, 235–241. 10.3138/ptc.2011-1023729957 Helmhout P. H. Harts C. C. Staal J. B. Candel M. J. J. M. de Bie R. A. (2004). Comparison of a high-intensity and a low-intensity lumbar extensor training program as minimal intervention treatment in low back pain: a randomized trial. Euro. Spine J. 13, 537–547. 10.1007/s00586-004-0671-y15095072 Helmhout P. H. Staal J. B. Heymans M. W. Harts C. C. Hendriks E. J. M. de Bie R. A. (2010). Prognostic factors for perceived recovery or functional improvement in non-specific low back pain: secondary analyses of three randomized clinical trials. Euro. Spine J. 19, 650–659. 10.1007/s00586-009-1254-820035358 Helminen E.-E. Arokoski J. P. Selander T. A. Sinikallio S. H. (2020). Multiple psychological factors predict pain and disability among community-dwelling knee osteoarthritis patients: a five-year prospective study. Clin. Rehabil. 34, 404–415. 10.1177/026921551990053331965830 Heuts P. H. Vlaeyen J. W. Roelofs J. de Bie R. A. Aretz K. van Weel C. . (2004). Pain-related fear and daily functioning in patients with osteoarthritis. Pain 110, 228–235. 10.1016/j.pain.2004.03.03515275772 Heymans M. W. de Vet H. C. W. Bongers P. M. Knol D. L. Koes B. W. van Mechelen W. (2006). The effectiveness of high-intensity versus low-intensity back schools in an occupational setting: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Spine. 31, 1075–1082. 10.1097/01.brs.0000216443.46783.4d16648740 Hidalgo B. Pitance L. Hall T. Detrembleur C. Nielens H. (2015). Short-term effects of Mulligan mobilization with movement on pain, disability, and kinematic spinal movements in patients with nonspecific low back pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 38, 365–374. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2015.06.01326215900 Hott A. Brox J. I. Pripp A. H. Juel N. G. Liavaag S. (2020). Patellofemoral pain: One year results of a randomized trial comparing hip exercise, knee exercise, or free activity. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 30, 741–753. 10.1111/sms.1361331846113 Hott A. Brox J. I. Pripp A. H. Juel N. G. Paulsen G. Liavaag S. (2019). Effectiveness of isolated hip exercise, knee exercise, or free physical activity for patellofemoral pain: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Sports Med. 47, 1312–1322. 10.1177/036354651983064430958707 Hotta G. H. Gomes de Assis Couto A. Cools A. M. McQuade K. J. Siriani de Oliveira A. (2020). Effects of adding scapular stabilization exercises to a periscapular strengthening exercise program in patients with subacromial pain syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Musculoskelet Sci. Pract. 49, 102171. 10.1016/j.msksp.2020.10217132861372 Innes K. E. Selfe T. K. Kandati S. Wen S. J. Huysmans Z. (2018). Effects of mantra meditation versus music listening on knee pain, function, and related outcomes in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: an exploratory randomized clinical trial (RCT). Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2018, 19. 10.1155/2018/768389730245732 Javdaneh N. Letafatkar A. Shojaedin S. Hadadnezhad M. (2020). Scapular exercise combined with cognitive functional therapy is more effective at reducing chronic neck pain and kinesiophobia than scapular exercise alone: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 34, 1485–1496. 10.1177/026921552094191033143436 Javdaneh N. Saeterbakken A. H. Shams A. Barati A. H. (2021). Pain neuroscience education combined with therapeutic exercises provides added benefit in the treatment of chronic neck pain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 1485–1496. 10.3390/ijerph1816884834444594 Karran E. L. Medalian Y. Hillier S. L. Moseley G. L. (2017). The impact of choosing words carefully: an online investigation into imaging reporting strategies and best practice care for low back pain. PeerJ 5, e4151. 10.7717/peerj.415129230375 Kori S. H. Miller R. P. Todd D. D. J. P. M. (2011). Kinisophobia: A new view of chronic pain behavior. J. Hum. Kinet. 28, 25–31. 10.2478/v10078-011-0019-823487514 Koumantakis G. A. Watson P. J. Oldham J. A. (2005). Trunk muscle stabilization training plus general exercise versus general exercise only: randomized controlled trial of patients with recurrent low back pain. Phys. Ther. 85, 209–225. 10.1093/ptj/85.3.20915733046 Kurt E. E. Büyükturan Ö. Erdem H. R. Tuncay F. Sezgin H. (2016). Short-term effects of kinesio tape on joint position sense, isokinetic measurements, and clinical parameters in patellofemoral pain syndrome. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 28, 2034–2040. 10.1589/jpts.28.203427512259 Lara-Palomo I. C. Aguilar-Ferrándiz M. E. Matarán-Peñarrocha G. A. Saavedra-Hernández M. Granero-Molina J. Fernández-Sola C. . (2013). Short-term effects of interferential current electro-massage in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 27, 439–449. 10.1177/026921551246078023035006 Larsson C. Hansson E. E. Sundquist K. Jakobsson U. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-11) among older people with chronic pain. Physiother. Theory Pract. 30, 421–428. 10.3109/09593985.2013.87754624410415 Lenoir D. Coppieters I. Willaert W. Kregel J. Danneels L. Cagnie B. . (2019). Do sociodemographic features, pain sensitivity or pain catastrophizing relate to clinic-based adherence to physiotherapy in people suffering from chronic spinal pain? Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Musculoskelet Sci. Pract. 44, 102066. 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.10206631605983 Lopez-Lopez A. Alonso Perez J. L. González Gutierez J. L. La Touche R. Lerma Lara S. Izquierdo H. . (2015). Mobilization versus manipulations versus sustain apophyseal natural glide techniques and interaction with psychological factors for patients with chronic neck pain: randomized controlled trial. Euro. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 51, 121–132.25296741 Louw A. Puentedura E. J. Reese D. Parker P. Miller T. Mintken P. E. (2017). Immediate effects of mirror therapy in patients with shoulder pain and decreased range of motion. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 98, 1941–1947. 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.03.03128483657 Lundberg M. Styf J. Jansson B. (2009). On what patients does the Tampa Scale for kinesiophobia fit? Physiother. Theory Pract. 25, 495–506. 10.3109/0959398080266216019925172 Luque-Suarez A. Martinez-Calderon J. Falla D. (2019). Role of kinesiophobia on pain, disability and quality of life in people suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review. Br. J. Sports Med. 53, 554–559. 10.1136/bjsports-2017-09867329666064 Martínez-Cervera F. V. Olteanu T. E. Gil-Martínez A. Díaz-Pulido B. Ferrer-Peña R. (2017). Influence of expectations plus mobilization with movement in patient with lateral epicondylalgia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Exerc. Rehabil. 13, 101–109. 10.12965/jer.1732848.42428349041 Meijer E. M. Sluiter J. K. Heyma A. Sadiraj K. Frings-Dresen M. H. W. (2006). Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment in sick-listed patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders: a randomized, controlled trial with one-year follow-up. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 79, 654–664. 10.1007/s00420-006-0098-316506042 Meirelles F. D. Cunha J. da Silva E. B. (2020). Osteopathic manipulation treatment versus therapeutic exercises in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized, controlled and double-blind study. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 33, 367–377. 10.3233/BMR-18135531658037 Mintken P. E. Cleland J. A. Whitman J. M. George S. Z. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in patients with shoulder pain. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 91, 1128–1136. 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.04.00920599053 Miyamoto G. C. Moura K. F. dos Santos Franco Y. R. de Oliveira N. T. B. Amaral D. D. V. . (2016). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different weekly frequencies of pilates for chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial. Phys. Ther. 96, 382–389. 10.2522/ptj.2015040426294680 Moffett J. K. Jackson D. A. Gardiner E. D. Torgerson D. J. Coulton S. Eaton S. . (2006). Randomized trial of two physiotherapy interventions for primary care neck and back pain patients: 'McKenzie' vs brief physiotherapy pain management. Rheumatology 45, 1514–1521. 10.1093/rheumatology/kel33917062645 Moher D. Liberati A. Tetzlaff J. Altman D. G. Group P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339, b2535. 10.1136/bmj.b253520171303 Monticone M. Ambrosini E. Rocca B. Cazzaniga D. Liquori V. Foti C. (2016). Group-based task-oriented exercises aimed at managing kinesiophobia improved disability in chronic low back pain. Eur. J. Pain 20, 541–551. 10.1002/ejp.75626198386 Monticone M. Ambrosini E. Rocca B. Cazzaniga D. Liquori V. Pedrocchi A. . (2017). Group-based multimodal exercises integrated with cognitive-behavioural therapy improve disability, pain and quality of life of subjects with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial with one-year follow-up. Clin. Rehabil. 31, 742–752. 10.1177/026921551665197927246516 Monticone M. Ambrosini E. Rocca B. Magni S. Brivio F. Ferrante S. (2014). A multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme improves disability, kinesiophobia and walking ability in subjects with chronic low back pain: results of a randomised controlled pilot study. Eur. Spine J. 23, 2105–2113. 10.1007/s00586-014-3478-525064093 Monticone M. Ambrosini E. Vernon H. Rocca B. Finco G. Foti C. . (2018). Efficacy of two brief cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation programs for chronic neck pain: results of a randomized controlled pilot study. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 54, 890–899. 10.23736/S1973-9087.18.05206-129984567 Monticone M. Cedraschi C. Ambrosini E. Rocca B. Fiorentini R. Restelli M. . (2015). Cognitive-behavioural treatment for subacute and chronic neck pain. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, CD010664. 10.1002/14651858.CD010664.pub226006174 Monticone M. Ferrante S. Rocca B. Baiardi P. Dal Farra F. Foti C. (2013). Effect of a long-lasting multidisciplinary program on disability and fear-avoidance behaviors in patients with chronic low back pain: results of a randomized controlled trial. Clin. J. Pain 11, 929–938. 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31827fef7e33543872 Nassif H. Brosset N. Guillaume M. Delore-Milles E. Tafflet M. Buchholz F. . (2011). Evaluation of a randomized controlled trial in the management of chronic lower back pain in a French automotive industry: an observational study. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 92, 1927–1936.e1924. 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.06.02922133239 Neblett R. Hartzell M. M. Mayer T. G. Bradford E. M. Gatchel R. J. (2016). Establishing clinically meaningful severity levels for the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-13). Eur. J. Pain 20, 701–710. 10.1002/ejp.79526516705 Östenberg A. H. Pojskic H. Gilic B. Sekulic D. Alricsson M. (2022). Physical fitness, dietary habits and substance misuse: a cross-sectional analysis of the associations in 7,600 swedish adolescents. Phys. Activity Health 6, 26–37. 10.5334/paah.164 Öztürk Ö. Bombac,i H. Keçeci T. Algun Z.C. (2021). Effects of additional action observation to an exercise program in patients with chronic pain due to knee osteoarthritis: a randomized-controlled trial. Musculoskelet Sci. Pract. 52, 102334. 10.1016/j.msksp.2021.10233433582621 Pardo G. B. Girbes E. L. Roussel N. A. Izquierdo T. G. Penick V. J. Martin D. P. (2018). Pain neurophysiology education and therapeutic exercise for patients with chronic low back pain: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 99, 338–347. 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.10.01629138049 Pillastrini P. Resende F. Banchelli F. Burioli A. Di Ciaccio E. Guccione A. A. . (2016). Effectiveness of global postural re-education in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain: randomized controlled trial. Phys. Ther. 96, 1408–1416. 10.2522/ptj.2015050127013576 Pires D. Cruz E. B. Caeiro C. (2015). Aquatic exercise and pain neurophysiology education versus aquatic exercise alone for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 29, 538–547. 10.1177/026921551454903325200879 Pool J. J. M. Ostelo R. W. J. G. Knol D. L. Vlaeyen J. W. S. Bouter L. M. de Vet H. C. W. (2010). Is a behavioral graded activity program more effective than manual therapy in patients with subacute neck pain? Results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 35, 1017–1024. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c212ee20393393 Priore L. B. Lack S. Garcia C. Azevedo F. M. de Oliveira Silva D. (2020). Two weeks of wearing a knee brace compared with minimal intervention on kinesiophobia at 2 and 6 weeks in people with patellofemoral pain: a randomized controlled trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 101, 613–623. 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.10.19031830433 Riecke J. Rief W. Vlaeyen J. W. S. Glombiewski J. A. (2020). Generalizability of harm and pain expectations after exposure in chronic low back pain patients. Euro. J. Pain 24, 1495–1504. 10.1002/ejp.160432548951 Roelofs J. Goubert L. Peters M. L. Vlaeyen J. W. Crombez G. (2004). The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia: further examination of psychometric properties in patients with chronic low back pain and fibromyalgia. Eur. J. Pain 8, 495–502. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.11.01615324781 Rouse B. Chaimani A. Li T. (2017). Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians. Intern. Emerg. Med. 12, 103–111. 10.1007/s11739-016-1583-727913917 Saracoglu I. Arik M. I. Afsar E. Gokpinar H. H. (2020). The effectiveness of pain neuroscience education combined with manual therapy and home exercise for chronic low back pain: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Physiother. Theory Pract. 38, 1–11. 10.1080/09593985.2020.180904632812478 Sarig Bahat H. Croft K. Carter C. Hoddinott A. Sprecher E. Treleaven J. (2018). Remote kinematic training for patients with chronic neck pain: a randomised controlled trial. Eur. Spine J. 27, 1309–1323. 10.1007/s00586-017-5323-029018956 Sarig Bahat H. Takasaki H. Chen X. Bet-Or Y. Treleaven J. (2015). Cervical kinematic training with and without interactive VR training for chronic neck pain - a randomized clinical trial. Man. Ther. 20, 68–78. 10.1016/j.math.2014.06.00825066503 Sato T. Shimizu K. Shiko Y. Kawasaki Y. Orita S. Inage K. . (2021). Effects of nintendo ring fit adventure exergame on pain and psychological factors in patients with chronic low back pain. Games Health J. 10, 158–164. 10.1089/g4h.2020.018033891508 Selhorst M. Fernandez-Fernandez A. Schmitt L. Hoehn J. (2021). Effect of a psychologically informed intervention to treat adolescents with patellofemoral pain: a randomized controlled trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 102, 1267–1273. 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.03.01633838141 Serrat M. Almirall M. Must,é M. Sanabria-Mazo J. P. Feliu-Soler A. Méndez-Ulrich J. L. . (2020). Effectiveness of a multicomponent treatment for fibromyalgia based on pain neuroscience education, exercise therapy, psychological support, and nature exposure (NAT-FM): a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Med. 9, 3348. 10.3390/jcm910334833081069 Serrat M. Coll-Omaña M. Albajes K. Sol,é S. Almirall M. Luciano J. V. . (2021). Efficacy of the FIBROWALK multicomponent program moved to a virtual setting for patients with fibromyalgia during the COVID-19 pandemic: a proof-of-concept RCT performed alongside the state of alarm in Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18. 10.3390/ijerph18191030034639600 Sinikallio S. H. Helminen E. E. Valjakka A. L. Vaisanen-Rouvali R. H. Arokoski J. P. (2014). Multiple psychological factors are associated with poorer functioning in a sample of community-dwelling knee osteoarthritis patients. J. Clin. Rheumatol. 20, 261–267. 10.1097/RHU.000000000000012325036567 Smeets R. J. Severens J. L. Beelen S. Vlaeyen J. W. Knottnerus J. A. (2009). More is not always better: cost-effectiveness analysis of combined, single behavioral and single physical rehabilitation programs for chronic low back pain. Eur. J. Pain 13, 71–81. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2008.02.00818434221 Smith B. E. Hendrick P. Bateman M. Moffatt F. Rathleff M. S. Selfe J. . (2019). A loaded self-managed exercise programme for patellofemoral pain: a mixed methods feasibility study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 20, 129. 10.1186/s12891-019-2516-130917806 Smith B. E. Littlewood C. May S. (2014). An update of stabilisation exercises for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 15, 416. 10.1186/1471-2474-15-41625488399 Tagliaferri S. D. Miller C. T. Ford J. J. Hahne A. J. Main L. C. Rantalainen T. . (2020). randomized trial of general strength and conditioning versus motor control and manual therapy for chronic low back pain on physical and self-report outcomes. J. Clin. Med. 9, 1726. 10.3390/jcm906172632503243 Takacs J. Krowchuk N. M. Garland S. J. Carpenter M. G. Hunt M. A. (2017). Dynamic balance training improves physical function in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 98, 1586–1593. 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.01.02928279661 Tejera D. M. Beltran-Alacreu H. Cano-de-la-Cuerda R. Leon Hernández J. V. Martín-Pintado-Zugasti A. Calvo-Lobo C. . (2020). Effects of virtual reality versus exercise on pain, functional, somatosensory and psychosocial outcomes in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 5950. 10.3390/ijerph1716595032824394 Tkachuk G. A. Harris C. A. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia-11 (TSK-11). J. Pain 13, 970–977. 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.07.00123031396 Urquhart D. M. Phyomaung P. P. Dubowitz J. Fernando S. Wluka A. E. Raajmaakers P. . (2015). Are cognitive and behavioural factors associated with knee pain? A systematic review. Semin. Arthritis. Rheum. 44, 445–455. 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2014.07.00525151034 Vihstadt C. Maiers M. Westrom K. Bronfort G. Evans R. Hartvigsen J. . (2014). Short term treatment versus long term management of neck and back disability in older adults utilizing spinal manipulative therapy and supervised exercise: a parallel-group randomized clinical trial evaluating relative effectiveness and harms. Chiropr. Man. Therap. 22, 26. 10.1186/s12998-014-0026-725478141 Vincent H. Seay A. Montero C. Vincent K. (2013). Outpatient rehabilitation outcomes in obese patients with orthopedic conditions. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 49, 419–429.23736903 Weissenfels A. Wirtz N. Dörmann U. Kleinöder H. Donath L. Kohl M. . (2019). Comparison of whole-body electromyostimulation versus recognized back-strengthening exercise training on chronic nonspecific low back pain: A randomized controlled study. Biomed. Res. Int. 2019, 5745409. 10.1155/2019/574540931687394 Wicksell R. K. Olsson G. L. Hayes S. C. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a mediator of improvement in acceptance and commitment therapy for patients with chronic pain following whiplash. Eur. J. Pain 14, 1059 e1051–1059.e1011. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.05.00120538493 Woby S. R. Roach N. K. Urmston M. Watson P. J. (2005). Psychometric properties of the TSK-11: a shortened version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Pain 117, 137–144. 10.1016/j.pain.2005.05.02916055269 Xiang L. Mei Q. Wang A. Shim V. Fernandez J. Gu Y. (2022). Evaluating function in the hallux valgus foot following a 12-week minimalist footwear intervention: A pilot computational analysis. J. Biomech.132, 110941. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2022.11094135063832 Xu D. Quan W. Zhou H. Sun D. Baker J. S. Gu Y. (2022). Explaining the differences of gait patterns between high and low-mileage runners with machine learning. Sci. Rep.12, 2981. 10.1038/s41598-022-07054-135194121 Xu Y. Song Y. Sun D. Fekete G. Gu Y. (2020). Effect of multi-modal therapies for kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 9439. 10.3390/ijerph1724943933339263 Yilmaz Yelvar G. D. Çirak Y. Dalkilin,ç M. Parlak Demir Y. Guner Z. Boydak A. (2017). Is physiotherapy integrated virtual walking effective on pain, function, and kinesiophobia in patients with non-specific low-back pain? Randomised controlled trial. Eur. Spine J. 26, 538–545. 10.1007/s00586-016-4892-727981455 Zdziarski L. A. Wasser J. G. Vincent H. K. (2015). Chronic pain management in the obese patient: a focused review of key challenges and potential exercise solutions. J. Pain. Res. 8, 63–77. 10.2147/JPR.S5536025709495 Zdziarski-Horodyski L. Vasilopoulos T. Horodyski M. Hagen J. E. Sadasivan K. S. Sharififar S. . (2020). Can an integrative care approach improve physical function trajectories after orthopaedic trauma? A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 478, 792–804. 10.1097/CORR.000000000000114032118608