Skip to main content
  • Other Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
Advertisement
JCORE Reference
this is the JCORE Reference site slogan
  • Home
  • Most Read
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
    • Help
  • Patients
  • Reference Site Links
    • View Regions
  • Archive

Addressing Neuroplastic Changes in Distributed Areas of the Nervous System Associated With Chronic Musculoskeletal Disorders

René Pelletier, Johanne Higgins, Daniel Bourbonnais
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140575 Published 1 November 2015
René Pelletier
R. Pelletier, MSc, Sciences de la Réadaptation, École de Réadaptation, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Johanne Higgins
J. Higgins, PhD, École de Réadaptation, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, CP 6128, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3J7, and Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Bourbonnais
D. Bourbonnais, PhD, École de Réadaptation, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, and Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Present interventions utilized in musculoskeletal rehabilitation are guided, in large part, by a biomedical model where peripheral structural injury is believed to be the sole driver of the disorder. There are, however, neurophysiological changes across different areas of the peripheral and central nervous systems, including peripheral receptors, dorsal horn of the spinal cord, brain stem, sensorimotor cortical areas, and the mesolimbic and prefrontal areas associated with chronic musculoskeletal disorders, including chronic low back pain, osteoarthritis, and tendon injuries. These neurophysiological changes appear not only to be a consequence of peripheral structural injury but also to play a part in the pathophysiology of chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Neurophysiological changes are consistent with a biopsychosocial formulation reflecting the underlying mechanisms associated with sensory and motor findings, psychological traits, and perceptual changes associated with chronic musculoskeletal conditions. These changes, therefore, have important implications in the clinical manifestation, pathophysiology, and treatment of chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Musculoskeletal rehabilitation professionals have at their disposal tools to address these neuroplastic changes, including top-down cognitive-based interventions (eg, education, cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness meditation, motor imagery) and bottom-up physical interventions (eg, motor learning, peripheral sensory stimulation, manual therapy) that induce neuroplastic changes across distributed areas of the nervous system and affect outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Furthermore, novel approaches such as the use of transcranial direct current stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation may be utilized to help renormalize neurological function. Comprehensive treatment addressing peripheral structural injury as well as neurophysiological changes occurring across distributed areas of the nervous system may help to improve outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders.

Traditionally, treatments for chronic musculoskeletal disorders (CMSDs) such as chronic low back pain (CLBP) have been anchored in a biomedical model. This model is based on a structural-pathology paradigm where insult to anatomical structures is believed to be the sole driver of the condition. Over the last 2 decades, evidence has emerged of neurophysiological changes within the peripheral and central nervous systems associated with CMSDs. Studies suggest that CMSDs do not simply result from ongoing structural pathology to peripheral tissues but involve a complex interplay among peripheral structural injury; altered afferent information conveyed from peripheral receptors toward the spinal cord, brain stem, and cortical areas; changes in neuronal processing of noxious stimuli; and psychosocial factors.1 These neurophysiological changes are consistent with experimental and clinical findings of altered sensory transmission, including sensory amplification of pain; motor control changes such as altered muscle recruitment patterns; changes in perceptual processes, including altered body image; psychological traits such as catastophization and somatization; and behavioral changes such as fear avoidance that appear to be implicated both in the clinical manifestation and the pathophysiology of CMSDs (Table).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table.

Areas of Neuroplastic Changes Associated With CMSD and Possible Signs and Symptoms Manifested by the Patienta

Neurophysiological changes, or neuroplasticity, refer to changes in structure, function, and organization within the nervous system that occur continuously throughout our lifetimes in response to internal stressors such as cognitive processes, internal changes in sensory afference, and external stressors such as motor learning and peripheral sensory stimulation.2 Neuroplasticity is the method by which the brain encodes new experiences, learns, and develops new behaviors. Neuroplastic changes associated with CMSDs have been demonstrated in the: (1) peripheral nervous system and spinal cord, (2) brain stem, (3) sensorimotor areas, and (4) mesolimbic and prefrontal areas of the cortex.1,3

Neurophysiological changes occurring within peripheral receptors and the dorsal horn of the spinal cord include increased responsiveness to nociceptive stimuli resulting from anatomical insult to musculoskeletal structures and neuropathic stimuli in sensory amplification, a process called sensitization, resulting in hyperalgesia, increased pain perception, and allodynia; innocuous stimuli are perceived as painful.4 Peripheral sensitization, involving increased responsiveness of the peripheral nociceptors, and central sensitization, involving changes in the spinal cord amplifying the transmission of pain, are natural processes that have a biological advantage in helping to protect the injury from reinjury.4 However, sensitization should be transient, and peripheral and dorsal horn plastic changes should return to their preinjury state, with normalized afferent peripheral input associated with tissue repair.4

Neuroplastic changes also occur within the brain stem, specifically in areas involved in the descending modulation of nociceptive and neuropathic stimuli, including the periaqueductal gray (PAG)5 and the rostral ventral medulla (RVM).6 The PAG and RVM are influenced by the mesolimbic and opioid systems, which, in turn, influence the transmission of noxious stimuli in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord.7 Evidence suggests that these descending modulatory systems are affected in chronic pain states and may perpetuate sensitization within the spinal cord.6,8

The sensory discriminative areas involved in the transmission and processing of noxious stimuli include the primary and secondary somatosensory cortices (S1 and S2, respectively) and the insula.7 The insula appears to be at the crossroads between the sensory discriminative and affective aspects related to pain sensation in the caudal portion and pain affect in the anterior portion.7

Changes in structure, function, and somatotopic organization of S19 and the primary motor cortex (M1)10 have been demonstrated in chronic pain conditions, including CLBP and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and have been found in patellofemoral pain syndrome, patellar tendinopathy,11 osteoarthritis (OA), and rotator cuff pathology.1 Changes in pressure pain thresholds12 and bilateral findings, including decreased strength13 and range of motion14 and presence of inflammatory mediators in the contralateral homologous structure,15 also allude to the presence of altered neural transmission and processing in a number of CMSDs. The neuroplastic changes in the cortical sensorimotor areas are consistent with sensory disturbances (ie, changes in tactile acuity), perceptual disturbances (ie, altered body image), and motor disturbances (ie, motor control) apparent in different CMSDs. The neurophysiological changes in the sensorimotor cortical areas often correlate with pain intensity and symptom duration.9,10 Evidence suggests a 2-way causality between pain or injury and cortical plasticity in S1 and M1, as the elimination of pain may result in cortical reorganization, and interventions that address cortical reorganization may result in decreased pain and improved function.16

The cognitive-affective-motivational areas involved in pain processing receive input from ascending projections via the brain stem and the thalamus.7 The cognitive-affective-motivational areas involved in pain processing include the structures within the mesolimbic and prefrontal areas such as the insula, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), amygdala, and prefrontal cortex (PFC).7 Arguably, the most important neuroplastic changes associated with CMSDs occur within the mesolimbic and prefrontal areas, regions associated with threat, fear, aversive conditioning, attention, motivation engagement or disengagement, and executive control.17 The best biomarker identified for the transition from acute to chronic conditions,18 and for the presence of chronicity in people with low back pain and OA, involves activity within these regions.3 Altered structure, function, and activity within the mesolimbic and prefrontal areas correlate with psychological traits that are often implicated in chronic conditions such as fear avoidance and catastrophization (a tendency to focus on and magnify actual or anticipated pain experience and to feel hopeless in the face of such experience19).20,21 Mesolimbic structures, specifically the PFC, ACC, and amygdala, also influence motor areas and functioning of the descending modulatory systems, including the PAG-RVM pathway, that are affected in chronic pain states.6,7 The PFC and mesolimbic activity appear to lay the foundation for increased vigilance, attention, and salience attributed to the injury and, therefore, may contribute to central sensitization, resulting in hyperalgesia and allodynia, and provide conditions ripe for inducing neuroplastic changes in the sensorimotor and subcortical areas. Increasing attention and salience directed to the injury, threat, and perception of pain appear to result in implicit and explicit learning linking movement with pain.16

In summary, neurophysiological changes associated with CMSDs include alterations in structure (decrease in gray matter in mesolimbic and prefrontal areas),22,23 function, organization (ie, changes in response properties and cortical representation in S1 and M1),1 and neurobiology (changes in brain chemistry concentrations have been found in people with CLBP in an area of the PFC and in M1).24

Implications of Distributed Neuroplastic Changes Associated With CMSD for Rehabilitation

Neuroplasticity associated with CMSDs has important implications for the treatment of conditions such as CLBP, OA, and possibly other CMSDs.25 Conventional rehabilitation interventions, in large part, are directed toward input mechanisms (ie, mechanisms addressing inflammation, repair, and remodeling in peripheral structural injury) and output mechanisms (ie, muscle strength, endurance, motor control, and proprioception) associated with CMSDs.26 Although these interventions may have an impact on peripheral structures, they—in themselves—may not be sufficient to restore cortical properties and function and alleviate pain, particularly in chronic injuries.27 In musculoskeletal rehabilitation, limited resources have been directed to the problems of transmission, processing, and control mediating afferent stimuli and motor output.26 Failure to effectively treat conditions such as CLBP may stem from the fact that the central neuroplastic changes occurring across distributed areas associated with this condition have largely been ignored and may explain why treatment effects are consistently small regardless of the type of intervention.1,28

Principles of neuroplasticity emerging from animal and human studies can be harnessed to induce positive neuroplastic changes. Studies in people with and without neurological injury suggest that the stimuli necessary to promote neuroplastic changes, at least in sensorimotor cortical areas, must be repetitive, of sufficient intensity to stimulate adaptive changes, require attention and behavioral salience, and involve learning.2,29 These studies also suggest that changes will be specific to the neuronal structures implicated in the task.2,29 Neuroplasticity is stimulus driven, and the stimuli can be mediated by top-down (from higher to lower hierarchical structures within the nervous system) and bottom-up (from peripheral to central structures of the nervous system) processes.30 As CMSDs involve neuroplastic changes within distributed areas, it is logical to believe that treatment should be directed across the different affected structures in the nervous system, including the sensorimotor areas and the mesolimbic prefrontal areas. Although this area of study is in its infancy, it appears that rehabilitation professionals have at their disposal tools and resources to promote adaptive changes in the sensorimotor areas as well as the mesolimbic and prefrontal areas associated with CMSDs.

Interventions

Top-down

Reconceptualizing pain.

Health care practitioners and people with CMSDs tend to view pain with a biomedical focus31 despite the failings of this model to explain clinical and experimental findings and to guide effective rehabilitative strategies. Studies indicate that the relationship between threat and tissue damage is altered in chronic pain states, the stimulus-response relationship between structural injury and pain perception is nebulous, and neuroplastic changes associated with chronic pain are maladaptive and no longer perform the biological function of protection.1,3,4,16 It is imperative that updated and current knowledge regarding pain and a biopsychosocial perspective stemming from the wealth of research findings that have emerged over the last 2 decades be transferred to health care professionals and the health care curriculum.32,33

Recognition of misguided beliefs, values, and behavioral strategies that people with CMSDs may display regarding pain and their injury that are incongruent with the rehabilitation principles of graded activity to promote mobilization and positive adaptive changes should be addressed early and continuously in the rehabilitative process.33 The conceptualization that pain and movement are associated with structural damage and the belief that the structural insult to anatomical structures is the source of all pain need to be reformulated.34

Experimental findings demonstrate that neurophysiology education of pain (NEP), which includes information regarding the anatomy, physiology, and processing of noxious stimuli; the perceptual nature of pain; and the altered processing with chronic pain, is associated with improvement in function and attenuation of pain.35 The information and concepts presented in the NEP programs are accessible to patients experiencing chronic pain34 and can have an immediate impact on behavior.35 Although the scientific literature is limited in regard to these programs, they would appear to perform better than educational programs that stem from a biomedical model to explain structural pathology and biomechanics as the drivers of the CMSD.36,37 A single session of neurophysiology education of pain in people with CLBP has proven to result in a transient decrease in pain and improvement in function35 and may be associated with changes in brain activation patterns.38 For more permanent changes in belief and behavior, the concepts stemming from neurophysiology education will probably need to be repeated consistently in the rehabilitation program.32 Although education has been demonstrated to be beneficial in outcome for chronic back pain,39 recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews of NEP demonstrate that these programs are promising but that results are currently tenuous due to the limited number of studies.36,37

Addressing maladaptive thoughts and behavior.

Cognitive-behavioral interventions (CBIs) seek to identify and address thoughts, ideas, and beliefs that are inconsistent, erroneous, and unproductive, resulting in maladaptive behavior patterns such as worry and avoidance.40 These interventions include traditional cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is a control-oriented treatment that attempts to address catastrophic thinking through cognitive restructuring, promotion of problem-solving skills, and addressing maladaptive behaviors through exposure-oriented interventions to address avoidance behaviors.41,42 Cognitive-behavioral therapy appears to result in improvement in function, decreased anxiety, and depression, which are correlated with increases in activation within the PFC.40,42 These findings suggest that CBT results in an increase in executive control that modulates dysfunctional activity in the mesolimbic areas.40,42 A prospective study of CBT in people with chronic back pain demonstrated decreased functional connectivity between the areas in the PFC and ACC with the amygdala/PAG, which positively correlated with decreased pain and improved self-efficacy.43 Systematic reviews of CBT in people with chronic pain indicate that CBT has small-to-moderate effects on mood, catastrophization, pain intensity, and, to a lesser extent, pain-related disability and avoidance behaviors for up to 6 months.40,44

Acceptance-based interventions.

Other forms of CBI also have been studied in regard to pain, including approaches that involve the development of awareness and nonjudgmental acceptance of pain in contrast to attempting to control or fight pain. Two such approaches are acceptance commitment therapy (ACT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR).41,45 Acceptance commitment therapy involves the acceptance of positive and negative experiences, the elucidation of values, commitment to these values, and appropriate goals and actions that support these values.45 Pain is seen as an interference to goal-directed, value-driven action.41,45 Mindfulness-based stress reduction incorporates meditation, yoga, and a body scan/relaxation technique providing instruction on acceptance without cognitive assessment to minimize anxiety and its detrimental effects on pain processing. This approach also encourages movement and relaxation and the transference of these skills and mind-set to everyday life.46 Different variants have been developed, including mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, which incorporates principles of CBT within MBSR. Mindfulness-based stress reduction decreases stress, anxiety, and depression associated with chronic pain states and, similar to CBT, has an impact on prefrontal structures and their control of mesolimbic structures.46,47

In healthy individuals, a 6-week program of MBSR resulted in neuroplastic changes in the insula and S1 and in changes in functional connectivity between the medial PFC and the insula (increased connectivity between these structures is found in patients with OA3), changes that also correlated with the improvement on psychological indexes, including worry, anxiety, and depression.47 In healthy people exposed to a noxious stimulation, MBSR not only resulted in the activation of areas in the PFC involved in the reformulation of the contextual evaluation of the noxious stimuli but also influenced activity within S1 and the thalamus, areas involved in the transmission and sensory discriminative aspects of pain, alluding to possible gating mechanism of noxious transmission.48

There is positive evidence for the use of CBI in the management of chronic pain; however, outcomes are variable, and the effects are small for pain intensity, anxiety, depression, quality of life, and physical well-being.41,45 The beneficial effects are greatest for mood, catastrophizing thoughts, and disability, and there is evidence that effects are maintained at 6 months.49,50

In summary, reconceptualization involves education that challenges negative and faulty beliefs regarding pain. Issues regarding stress, anxiety, and worry that contribute to a heightened response to pain, guarding, and fear avoidance need to be addressed continuously, and patients should be provided with the tools to better understand and manage their pain and disability, including information regarding pain neurophysiology and a biopsychosocial formulation of CMSDs.26 Collectively, these interventions appear to improve self-efficacy, the ability of the person to self-manage through actions and interventions to cope with his or her pain and disability, and promote active coping styles.43,51 Greater self-efficacy is associated with better outcomes in patients with chronic pain.51 Cognitive-based interventions also address the mesolimbic and prefrontal changes associated with chronic pain, which, in turn, may affect descending pain modulatory systems within the brain stem (that perpetuate sensitization) and cortical sensorimotor areas.7 Neurophysiology education of pain and CBI should be addressed at the onset of treatment, even in acute and subacute phases, and should be continuously addressed during the rehabilitation process. Failure of these interventions to demonstrate more positive effects and for longer durations may stem from the fact that substantial changes in neurophysiological correlates of faulty beliefs and values have not been reconceptualized sufficiently.

Priming the brain for movement.

The creation of adaptive changes in musculoskeletal structures requires graded and progressive interventions, performed repetitively and with sufficient intensity.52 These principles appear to apply equally in addressing neuroplastic changes to promote positive adaptive outcomes.2

Graded exposure can begin with interventions that require implicit activation of sensory and associative areas in the parietal cortical areas through interventions such as laterality recognition, where the patient is asked to determine the laterality of an anatomical image without moving the body part.53 Studies have shown that people with experimental and chronic pain, including CLBP, CRPS, OA, and CTS, make more errors, and the speed in the performance of this task is affected when visualizing the injured body part, reflective of altered somatosensory organization and processes in sensory areas, including S1 and the inferior parietal regions.54,55 Interventions incorporating implicit imagery result in changes in S1 properties and organization as well as decreased pain and improved function.56

Explicit cognitive exposure involves motor imagery of painful or fearful movements. Motor imagery has a long history of use in kinesiology and has well-documented positive benefits for performance. In people experiencing chronic pain, motor imagery may help to improve physical performance57 and may help to address cortical changes in mesolimbic and prefrontal areas associated with physical performance of active movements and possible learned associations (implicit and explicit) of pain and movement.32 Motor imagery utilized for the learning of a new motor skill results in improvement in performance and changes in the motor areas similar to actual physical practice.

Cognitive-based interventions such as motor imagery can influence brain function and cortical processes, including sensorimotor areas. They may have an advantage in highly anxious and fearful patients, as they do not involve physical movement and should not elicit an anxiety response. The progressive nature of these interventions appears to be important, at least in certain pain conditions such as CRPS when pain severely limits the capacity for movement, and simply imagining movement can increase pain and swelling.58,59 To induce changes in properties and organization in sensorimotor cortical area tasks involving motor acquisition of new skills requiring sustained attention appears to be necessary.

Novel approaches for promoting cortical neuroplasticity.

Direct noninvasive stimulation of cortical neurons to promote neuroplastic changes, both in isolation or in association with other modalities, has been investigated in a limited number of research studies.60,61 Noninvasive cortical stimulation includes transcranial direct cortical stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Transcranial direct cortical stimulation involves the application of a direct electrical current to the surface of the cranium. Combined tDCS and peripheral electrical stimulation (PES) in people with CLBP has resulted in a map reorganization in M1, improvement in sensory function, and decrease in pain that was superior to their individual application.30

Transcranial magnetic stimulation involves an electrical current passing through a coil producing a magnetic field that traverses the skull and results in the depolarization of neurons under the coil. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied at low frequencies (below 5 Hz) produces an inhibition of the area of stimulation, whereas rTMS applied at higher frequencies (greater than 5 Hz) results in a facilitation. Studies have been performed in people who were neurologically compromised, including patients with stroke, to help promote positive neuroplastic changes and improve motor function. Repetitive TMS over the somatosensory cortex also can result in improved tactile acuity.62 Repetitive TMS and anodal tDCS of the motor cortex help to attenuate chronic pain.63 A study by Stefan et al64 also combined PES with TMS to promote neuroplastic changes in M1.

Bottom-up

Addressing changes in sensorimotor areas of the brain.

Bottom-up modulation of altered processing and organization in S1 includes interventions such as sensory discrimination training and PES. Tactile acuity, specifically 2-point discrimination utilized as a form of treatment, has been associated with decreases in pain, improvement in function, and renormalization of properties and organization within S1 in people with CRPSs but only when they were attentive to the experimental interventions.65,66 These findings are consistent with those of studies that renormalized cortical organization in S1 in people with CTS and reduced pain and disability in people with CLBP that appeared to be mediated by the discriminative nature of sensory stimulation associated with acupuncture.67 Sensory retuning programs involving different forms of sensory stimulation also have been performed in patients with CLBP and CTS, and preliminary evidence, although limited in scope, is promising.65,68

Peripheral electrical stimulation can be utilized to affect neuronal properties in both S1 and M1 in healthy people.69 This form of electrical stimulation can cause alterations in the somatotopic map within S1 and improve sensory function.70 It can both augment and attenuate neural excitability in both S1 and M1, depending on the parameters of stimulation.71 Peripheral electrical stimulation of a mixed nerve for 120 minutes, at frequencies >10 Hz and an intensity of stimulation at or close to motor threshold, results in increases in corticospinal excitability and improvement of motor performance in healthy people.69 Higher stimulation frequencies appear to result in decreases in excitability of neurons in the motor cortex.69 Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation applied daily for 3 weeks to the hand in healthy individuals resulted in an increase in map volume and area of representation of muscles of the hand within M1.72

To induce plastic changes in M1, active interventions need to focus on motor learning.27,29 The simple repetition of movement will not result in plastic changes in the motor cortex.27 Excellent reviews have recently been published on principles of neuroplasticity and motor learning and their utilization in patients with CMSDs.25,26,29 Principles including the utilization of motor learning, functional reacquisition, and external focus of attention can be incorporated into rehabilitation programs to address changes in the sensorimotor areas associated with CMSDs.25,29 Motor learning requires focused attention and salience and involves increased interaction and feedback.25 The importance of attention in promoting plastic changes in M1 has been demonstrated in a number of studies. Indeed, it is possible that effects related to motor learning may simply be mediated by the increased attention required to perform new tasks.73 Active movements to promote motor learning and associated cortical changes should involve functional progressions with increasing task complexity.29 Finally, an external focus of attention involved with motor learning may be beneficial to shift attention toward the accomplishment of a task, as distraction helps to modulate pain perception, rather than an internal focus, which results in increased vigilance toward pain and can exacerbate pain perception.7,25

Clinical application of treatment addressing distributed neuroplastic changes with CMSDs.

Active interventions addressing motor and mobility disturbances also should be graded and progressive. The use of laterality recognition training, motor imagery, and mirrors in an approach of graded motor imagery may be helpful in addressing neurophysiological changes associated with CMSDs.56 The question of whether to begin with painful movements to challenge the maladaptive changes in the nervous system or to progressively begin exercise in nonpainful ranges and movements or with graded imagery before progressing to movements that are associated with fear and anxiety is a matter of debate.26,29 The choice may be dictated by patient's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors—the more fearful and anxious, the more nonthreatening should be the progression of exercise as early pain may simply reinforce their existent values and operant learning linking movement to pain. However, pain should not be utilized as the sole measure of progression because of the nebulous relationship between pain and threat of impending further tissue injury in chronic pain states. Exercise should be guided by form, the ability to perform the movement correctly, and functional progressions in volume and intensity (resistance and difficulty of task).25,29

The cognitive strategies reviewed earlier need to be addressed continuously in order to dampen the effects of anxiety and fear, to limit guarding, and to progressively integrate movements that were previously perceived as threatening. Patients' beliefs, apprehension, and behaviors must be challenged repetitively.32 Graded functional progressions should, over time, help extinguish learned associations reflective of neuroplastic changes in the mesolimbic and prefrontal areas, and secondly address the cortical changes in the sensorimotor areas associated with CMSDs. Cortical and subcortical areas and the spinal cord have strong interconnections, and interventions targeting one area should affect the others, including sensorimotor and mesolimbic areas. Finally, the positive yet limited effects of many of these approaches in isolation suggest that a multimodal approach that is coherent, consistent, and incorporates interventions specifically targeting neuroplastic changes may yield more positive outcomes.

Reconceptualizing treatment provided to patients with CMSDs.

The growing evidence for changes in distributed areas of the nervous system in chronic pain conditions also may provide greater comprehension of methods of action currently utilized by physical rehabilitation professionals and lead to more effective interventions, which may involve neurophysiological changes. Treatment goals in patients with CMSDs have largely been directed by a biomedical paradigm, which has proven to be limited in efficacy.28,74 Rehabilitation currently performed with patients with CMSDs may result in peripheral and central changes. The reconceptualizing of treatment provided to patients with CMSDs, therefore, would involve an approach that targets peripheral structural sources of pain, as well as interactions and specific interventions to encourage plastic changes in the nervous system, by addressing faulty values and beliefs regarding pain, attempting to minimize fear and anxiety, and performing exercises and interventions that target sensorimotor and perceptual changes.

It is imperative that the therapist remains consistent in the messages conveyed both explicitly and implicitly through his or her actions and behaviors. The message conveyed to the patient should not imply implicitly or explicitly that a structural pathology model of local biomechanical problems alone is the sole driver of the CMSDs. The implicit or explicit perception by the patient would be inconsistent with experimental findings and may perpetuate faulty beliefs and encourage fear avoidance, anxiety, and guarding, resulting in decreased movement and contributing to a biomedical focus of local tissue insult as the driver of the condition and possibly negatively affecting self-efficacy and outcomes.26,75 A consistent message conveyed by the therapist to the patient is important, as therapist-patient interaction and communication are important for treatment success.76 Our current understanding of principles of neuroplasticity may help understand the method of action of current interventions and develop interventions that help promote positive long-term adaptive changes within the CNS associated with CMSDs.

Conclusion

Chronic low back pain, OA, and probably other CMSDs are associated with neuroplastic changes across distributed areas of the nervous system, including structural as well as peripheral and central neurophysiological changes. These changes correlate with the clinical and experimental findings within this population, including psychological traits and perceptual and sensorimotor disturbances. Addressing the changes across the distributed network may help to yield greater understanding and outcomes for the treatment of these conditions. This approach involves cognitive-based interventions such as education to reconceptualize beliefs regarding pain and interventions to modify patients' thoughts and reactions to help control anxiety and improve self-efficacy. Neuroplastic changes in the sensorimotor cortical areas also are affected in CMSDs, and interventions that modulate sensory input and involve motor learning need to be incorporated into existent rehabilitation programs. The focus of interventions oriented toward renormalization of distributed cortical areas is consistent with a biopsychosocial paradigm and may result in improved outcomes. Imaging studies of these cortical areas associated with CMSDs will help to determine how widespread these cortical changes are, to provide an additional means to address efficacy of these interventions, and to determine how well interventions correlate with positive outcomes and renormalization of cortical properties, processes, and organization. Musculoskeletal rehabilitation professionals are well positioned and have resources at their disposal to influence positive adaptive neuroplastic changes by addressing psychological and biological factors within the nervous system associated with CMSDs.

Footnotes

  • All authors provided concept/idea/project design and writing. Dr Higgins provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission).

  • Received December 23, 2014.
  • Accepted May 1, 2015.
  • © 2015 American Physical Therapy Association

References

  1. ↵
    1. Pelletier R,
    2. Higgins J,
    3. Bourbonnais D
    . Is neuroplasticity in the central nervous system the missing link to our understanding of chronic musculoskeletal disorders? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Kleim JA,
    2. Jones TA
    . Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51:S225–S239.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Apkarian AV,
    2. Hashmi JA,
    3. Baliki MN
    . Pain and the brain: specificity and plasticity of the brain in clinical chronic pain. Pain. 2011;152(3 suppl):S49–S64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Woolf CJ
    . Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain. 2011;152(3 suppl):S2–S15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Lee YC,
    2. Lu B,
    3. Bathon JM,
    4. et al
    . Pain sensitivity and pain reactivity in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63:320–327.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Heinricher MM,
    2. Tavares I,
    3. Leith JL,
    4. Lumb BM
    . Descending control of nociception: specificity, recruitment and plasticity. Brain Res Rev. 2009;60:214–225.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Bushnell MC,
    2. Ceko M,
    3. Low LA
    . Cognitive and emotional control of pain and its disruption in chronic pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14:502–511.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Wang R,
    2. King T,
    3. De Felice M,
    4. et al
    . Descending facilitation maintains long-term spontaneous neuropathic pain. J Pain. 2013;14:845–853.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Flor H,
    2. Braun C,
    3. Elbert T,
    4. Birbaumer N
    . Extensive reorganization of primary somatosensory cortex in chronic back pain patients. Neurosci Lett. 1997;224:5–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Tsao H,
    2. Danneels KA,
    3. Hodges PW
    . ISSLS prize winner: Smudging the motor brain in young adults with recurrent low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:1721–1727.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Rio E,
    2. Kidgell D,
    3. Moseley GL,
    4. Cook J
    . Patellar tendinopathy: looking outside the tendon. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(suppl 2):A57–A57.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Bisset LM,
    2. Russell T,
    3. Bradley S,
    4. et al
    . Bilateral sensorimotor abnormalities in unilateral epicondylagia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:490–495.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Fernández-de-las-Peñas C,
    2. Pérez-de-Heredia-Torres M,
    3. Martínez-Piédrola R,
    4. et al
    . Bilateral deficits in fine motor control and pinch grip force in patients with unilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Exp Brain Res. 2009;194:29–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Forget N,
    2. Piotte F,
    3. Arsenault J,
    4. et al
    . Bilateral thumb's active range of motion and strength in de Quervain's disease: comparison with a normal sample. J Hand Ther. 2008;21:276–284; quiz 285.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Andersson G,
    2. Forsgren S,
    3. Scott A,
    4. et al
    . Tenocyte hypercellularity and vascular proliferation in a rabbit model of tendinopathy: contralateral effects suggest the involvement of central neuronal mechanisms. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45:399–406.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Moseley GL,
    2. Flor H
    . Targeting cortical representations in the treatment of chronic pain: a review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:646–652.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Kulkarni B,
    2. Bentley DE,
    3. Elliott R,
    4. et al
    . Arthritic pain is processed in brain areas concerned with emotions and fear. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56:1345–1354.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Baliki MN,
    2. Petre B,
    3. Torbey S,
    4. et al
    . Corticostriatal functional connectivity predicts transition to chronic back pain. Nature Neurosci. 2012;15:1117–1119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Wertli MM,
    2. Burgstaller JM,
    3. Weiser S,
    4. et al
    . Influence of catastrophizing on treatment outcome in patients with nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:263–273.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Seminowicz DA,
    2. Davis KD
    . Cortical responses to pain in healthy individuals depends on pain catastrophizing. Pain. 2006;120:297–306.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Ochsner KN,
    2. Ludlow DH,
    3. Knierim K,
    4. et al
    . Neural correlates of individual differences in pain-related fear and anxiety. Pain. 2006;120:69–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    1. May A
    . Chronic pain may change the structure of the brain. Pain. 2008;137:7–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Apkarian AV,
    2. Sosa Y,
    3. Sonty S,
    4. et al
    . Chronic back pain is associated with decreased prefrontal and thalamic gray matter density. J Neurosci. 2004;24:10410–10415.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Grachev ID,
    2. Fredrickson BE,
    3. Apkarian AV
    . Abnormal brain chemistry in chronic back pain: an in vivo proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy study. Pain. 2000;89:7–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    1. Snodgrass SJ,
    2. Heneghan NR,
    3. Tsao H,
    4. et al
    . Recognising neuroplasticity in musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a basis for greater collaboration between musculoskeletal and neurological physiotherapists. Man Ther. 2014;19:614–617.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Nijs J,
    2. Meeus M,
    3. Cagnie B,
    4. et al
    . A modern neuroscience approach to chronic spinal pain: combining pain neuroscience education with cognition-targeted motor control training. Phys Ther. 2014;94:730–738.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Lundbye Jensen J,
    2. Marstrand P,
    3. Nielsen J
    . Motor skill training and strength training are associated with different plastic changes in the central nervous system. J Appl Physiol. 2005;99:1558–1568.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Wand BM,
    2. O'Connell NE
    . Chronic non-specific low back pain: sub-groups or a single mechanism? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Boudreau SA,
    2. Farina D,
    3. Falla D
    . The role of motor learning and neuroplasticity in designing rehabilitation approaches for musculoskeletal pain disorders. Man Ther. 2010;15:410–414.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Schabrun SM,
    2. Jones E,
    3. Elqueta Cancino EL,
    4. Hodges PW
    . Targeting chronic recurrent low back pain from the top-down and the bottom-up: a combined transcranial direct current stimulation and peripheral electrical stimulation intervention. Brain Stim. 2014;7:451–459.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Shaw WS,
    2. Pransky G,
    3. Roter DL,
    4. et al
    . The effects of patient-provider communication on 3-month recovery from acute low back pain. J Am Board Fam Med. 2011;24:16–25.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Nijs J,
    2. Lluch Girbés E,
    3. Lundberg M,
    4. et al
    . Exercise therapy for chronic musculoskeletal pain: innovation by altering pain memories. Man Ther. 2015;20:216–220.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Nijs J,
    2. Roussel N,
    3. Paul van Wilgen C,
    4. et al
    . Thinking beyond muscles and joints: therapists' and patients' attitudes and beliefs regarding chronic musculoskeletal pain are key to applying effective treatment. Man Ther. 2013;18:96–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Moseley L
    . Unraveling the barriers to reconceptualization of the problem in chronic pain: the actual and perceived ability of patients and health professionals to understand the neurophysiology. J Pain. 2003;4:184–189.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. Moseley GL
    . Evidence for a direct relationship between cognitive and physical change during an education intervention in people with chronic low back pain. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:39–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    1. Louw A,
    2. Diener I,
    3. Butler DW,
    4. Puentedura EJ
    . The effect of neuroscience education on pain, disability, anxiety, and stress in chronic musculoskeletal pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:2041–2056.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Clarke CL,
    2. Ryan CG,
    3. Martin DJ
    . Pain neurophysiology education for the management of individuals with chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Man Ther. 2011;16:544–549.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Moseley GL
    . Widespread brain activity during an abdominal task markedly reduced after pain physiology education: fMRI evaluation of a single patient with chronic low back pain. Aust J Physiother. 2005;51:49–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. ↵
    1. Engers AJ,
    2. Jellema P,
    3. Wensing M,
    4. et al
    . Individual patient education for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;1:CD004750.
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Ehde DM,
    2. Dillworth TM,
    3. Turner JA
    . Cognitive-behavioral therapy for individuals with chronic pain: efficacy, innovations, and directions for research. Am Psychol. 2014;69:153–166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Wetherell JL,
    2. Afari N,
    3. Rutledge T,
    4. et al
    . A randomized, controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy for chronic pain. Pain. 2011;152:2098–2107.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Jensen KB,
    2. Kosek E,
    3. Wicksell R,
    4. et al
    . Cognitive behavioral therapy increases pain-evoked activation of the prefrontal cortex in patients with fibromyalgeia. Pain. 2012;153:1495–1503.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    1. Shpaner M,
    2. Kelly C,
    3. Lieberman G,
    4. et al
    . Unlearning chronic pain: a randomized controlled trial to investigate changes in intrinsic brain connectivity following cognitive behavioral therapy. Neuroimage Clin. 2014;5:365–376.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    1. Bernardy K,
    2. Füber N,
    3. Köllner V,
    4. Häuser W
    . Efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapies in fibromyalgia syndrome: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. J Rheumatol. 2010;37:1991–2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Veehof MM,
    2. Oskam MJ,
    3. Schreuers KM,
    4. Bohlmeijer ET
    . Acceptance-based interventions for the treatment of chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2011;152:533–542.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. ↵
    1. Hofmann SG,
    2. Sawyer AT,
    3. Witt AA,
    4. Oh D
    . The effect of mindfulness-based therapy on anxiety and depression: a meta-analytic review. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010;78:169.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. ↵
    1. Santarnecchi E,
    2. D'Arista S,
    3. Egiziano E,
    4. et al
    . Interaction between neuroanatomical and psychological changes after mindfulness-based training. PloS One. 2014;9:e108359.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Zeidan F,
    2. Grant JA,
    3. Brown CA,
    4. et al
    . Mindfulness meditation-related pain relief: evidence for unique brain mechanisms in the regulation of pain. Neurosci Lett. 2012;520:165–173.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Eccleston C,
    2. Morley S,
    3. Williams AC
    . Psychological approaches to chronic pain management: evidence and challenges. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111:59–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Williams AC,
    2. Eccleston C,
    3. Morley S
    . Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2012;11:CD00747.
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. Jackson T,
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Fan H
    . Self-efficacy and chronic pain outcomes: a meta-analytic review. J Pain. 2014;15:800–814.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Mueller MJ,
    2. Maluf KS
    . Tissue adaptation to physical stress: a proposed “physical stress theory” to guide physical therapist practice, education, and research. Phys Ther. 2002;82:383–403.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Parsons LM
    . Integrating cognitive psychology, neurology and neuroimaging. Acta Psychol. 2001;107:155–181.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. ↵
    1. Bowering KJ,
    2. Butler DS,
    3. Fulton IJ,
    4. Moseley GL
    . Motor imagery in people with a history of back pain, current back pain, both, or neither. Clin J Pain. 2014;30:1070–1075.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Schmid AB,
    2. Coppieters MW
    . Left/right judgment of body parts is selectively impaired in patients with unilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin J Pain. 2012;28:615–622.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. ↵
    1. Bowering KJ,
    2. O'Connell NE,
    3. Tabor A,
    4. et al
    . The effects of graded motor imagery and its components on chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain. 2013;14:3–13.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  57. ↵
    1. Hoyek N,
    2. Di Rienzo F,
    3. Collet C,
    4. et al
    . The therapeutic role of motor imagery on the functional rehabilitation of a stage II shoulder impingement syndrome. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1113–1119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Moseley GL
    . Graded motor imagery is effective for long-standing complex regional pain syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. Pain. 2004;108:192–198.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  59. ↵
    1. Moseley GL,
    2. Zalucki N,
    3. Birklein F,
    4. et al
    . Thinking about movement hurts: the effect of motor imagery on pain and swelling in people with chronic arm pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:623–631.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. ↵
    1. Schabrun SM,
    2. Chipchase KS
    . Priming the brain to learn: the future of therapy? Man Ther. 2012;17:184–186.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Williams JA,
    2. Imamura M,
    3. Fregni F
    . Updates on the use of non-invasive brain stimulation in physical and rehabilitation medicine. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:305–311.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  62. ↵
    1. Tegenthoff M,
    2. Ragert P,
    3. Pleger B,
    4. et al
    . Improvement of tactile discrimination performance and enlargement of cortical somatosensory maps after 5 Hz rTMS. PLoS Biol. 2005;3:e362.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Lefaucheur J-P,
    2. Antal A,
    3. Ahdab R
    . The use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to relieve pain. Brain Stim. 2008;1:337–344.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. ↵
    1. Stefan K,
    2. Kunesch E,
    3. Cohen LG,
    4. et al
    . Induction of plasticity in the human motor cortex by paired associative stimulation. Brain. 2000;123:572–584.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. Pleger B,
    2. Tegenthoff M,
    3. Ragert P,
    4. et al
    . Sensorimotor retuning in complex regional pain syndrome parallels pain reduction. Ann Neurol. 2005;57:425–429.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  66. ↵
    1. Moseley GL,
    2. Zalucki NM,
    3. Wiech K
    . Tactile discrimination, but not tactile stimulation alone, reduces chronic limb pain. Pain. 2008;137:600–608.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. ↵
    1. Wand BM,
    2. Abbaszadeh S,
    3. Smith AJ,
    4. et al
    . Acupuncture applied as a sensory discrimination training tool decreases movement-related pain in patients with chronic low back pain more than acupuncture alone: a randomised cross-over experiment. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47:1085–1089.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    1. Wand BM,
    2. O'Connell NE,
    3. Di Pietro F,
    4. Bulsara M
    . Managing chronic nonspecific low back pain with a sensorimotor retraining approach: exploratory multiple-baseline study of 3 participants. Phys Ther. 2011;91:535–546.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Chipchase LS,
    2. Schabrun SM,
    3. Hodges PW
    . Peripheral electrical stimulation to induce cortical plasticity: a systematic review of stimulus parameters. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122:456–463.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Veldman MP,
    2. Maffiuletti NA,
    3. Hallett M,
    4. et al
    . Direct and crossed effects of somatosensory stimulation on neuronal excitability and motor performance in humans. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014;47:22–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Chipchase LS,
    2. Schabrun SM,
    3. Hodges PW
    . Corticospinal excitability is dependent on the parameters of peripheral electric stimulation: a preliminary study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:1423–1430.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Meesen RL,
    2. Cuypers K,
    3. Rothwell JC,
    4. et al
    . The effect of long-term TENS on persistent neuroplastic changes in the human cerebral cortex. Hum Brain Mapp. 2011;32:872–882.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  73. ↵
    1. Stefan K,
    2. Wycislo M,
    3. Classen J
    . Modulation of associative human motor cortical plasticity by attention. J Neurophysiol. 2004;92:66–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Darlow B,
    2. Fullen BM,
    3. Dean S,
    4. et al
    . The association between health care professional attitudes and beliefs and the attitudes and beliefs, clinical management, and outcomes of patients with low back pain: a systematic review. Eur J Pain. 2012;16:3–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  75. ↵
    1. Lluch Girbés EL,
    2. Meeus M,
    3. Baert I,
    4. Nijs J
    . Balancing “hands-on” with “hands-off” physical therapy interventions for the treatment of central sensitization pain in osteoarthritis. Man Ther. 2015;20:349–352.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Ferreira PH,
    2. Ferreira MK,
    3. Maher CG,
    4. et al
    . The therapeutic alliance between clinicians and patients predicts outcome in chronic low back pain. Phys Ther. 2013;93:470–478.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 95 Issue 11 Table of Contents
Physical Therapy: 95 (11)

Issue highlights

  • Effectiveness of Soft Tissue Massage
  • Cognitive Functional Therapy and Chronic Low Back Pain
  • General Movement Assessment in Cerebral Palsy
  • Activities of Daily Living in Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder
  • Physical Therapists' Use of Standardized Measures for Walking Capacity
  • Benefits of TENS for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
  • Diagnostic Value of Clinical Cervical Spine Tests
  • Clinical Ratings of Pain Sensitivity and Chronic Neck Pain
  • Handwriting of People With Cerebellar Ataxia
  • PEDI-CAT and AIMS Validity and Responsiveness
  • Balance Training for Children With Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
  • Neuroplastic Changes and Chronic Musculoskeletal Disorders
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on JCORE Reference.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Addressing Neuroplastic Changes in Distributed Areas of the Nervous System Associated With Chronic Musculoskeletal Disorders
(Your Name) has sent you a message from JCORE Reference
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the JCORE Reference web site.
Print
Addressing Neuroplastic Changes in Distributed Areas of the Nervous System Associated With Chronic Musculoskeletal Disorders
René Pelletier, Johanne Higgins, Daniel Bourbonnais
Physical Therapy Nov 2015, 95 (11) 1582-1591; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140575

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Save to my folders

Share
Addressing Neuroplastic Changes in Distributed Areas of the Nervous System Associated With Chronic Musculoskeletal Disorders
René Pelletier, Johanne Higgins, Daniel Bourbonnais
Physical Therapy Nov 2015, 95 (11) 1582-1591; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140575
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Implications of Distributed Neuroplastic Changes Associated With CMSD for Rehabilitation
    • Interventions
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Education Research in Physical Therapy: Visions of the Possible
  • Seven-Step Framework for Critical Analysis and Its Application in the Field of Physical Therapy
  • Medical Marijuana: Just the Beginning of a Long, Strange Trip?
Show more Perspectives

Subjects

  • Neurology/Neuromuscular System
    • Neurology/Neuromuscular System: Other
  • Perspectives
  • Musculoskeletal System/Orthopedic
    • Osteoarthritis
    • Injuries and Conditions: Low Back
  • Intervention
    • Patient/Client-Related Instruction
    • Electrotherapy

Footer Menu 1

  • menu 1 item 1
  • menu 1 item 2
  • menu 1 item 3
  • menu 1 item 4

Footer Menu 2

  • menu 2 item 1
  • menu 2 item 2
  • menu 2 item 3
  • menu 2 item 4

Footer Menu 3

  • menu 3 item 1
  • menu 3 item 2
  • menu 3 item 3
  • menu 3 item 4

Footer Menu 4

  • menu 4 item 1
  • menu 4 item 2
  • menu 4 item 3
  • menu 4 item 4
footer second
footer first
Copyright © 2013 The HighWire JCore Reference Site | Print ISSN: 0123-4567 | Online ISSN: 1123-4567
advertisement bottom
Advertisement Top