Systematic ReviewPain Science & Central SensitizationSystematic Reviews & Meta-analysesComorbidities & Related ConditionsClinical RelevanceDOI
4 min read
Jump to:

Patient-friendly summary

If you read nothing else

Teaching osteoarthritis patients how pain works in the body may modestly reduce their fear of movement, but the evidence so far is limited and inconsistent.

Bottom line

Pain neuroscience education shows a tendency to improve psychosocial outcomes (notably a small effect on kinesiophobia) in osteoarthritis patients, but benefits are small, inconsistent, and cannot yet be attributed to education alone — more research is needed.

Preliminary evidence

Published

2022
4 years ago
Recent

Evidence hierarchy

Meta-analysis
Systematic Review ◀ this study
RCT
Cohort
Case-Control
Case Report
Expert Opinion

Study participants

4 included studies (individual sample sizes not reported in the text)Adults 18 years and olderNot reported

Adults (18+) with osteoarthritis, predominantly radiologically confirmed knee OA, including total knee arthroplasty candidates

Full research — for clinicians and curious readers

Study Summary

This systematic review examined whether pain neuroscience education (PNE) — an educational approach that teaches patients about the biology and physiology of pain — improves pain and psychosocial outcomes in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), most of whom were knee OA patients facing or recovering from knee replacement surgery. After screening 12,573 records, only four studies met inclusion criteria, delivered across 1–6 sessions. The authors found a tendency toward improvement in groups receiving PNE, with a small effect favoring PNE for kinesiophobia (fear of movement), but effects on pain catastrophizing and pain intensity were small and inconsistent, and no clear benefit was seen for disability. A meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity, and the authors caution that observed pain improvements may be partly attributable to medications rather than education alone.

42/100
Evidence StrengthModerate
Study Quality
Sample Size
Replication

Key Findings

Only four studies qualified, and a meta-analysis was not possibleHigh

From 12,573 initial titles (202 unique records after de-duplication), just four articles met inclusion criteria. They used differing interventions and dosing (1–6 sessions; sessions ranging 30–60 minutes), so the heterogeneity and small number of studies prevented pooling the data into a meta-analysis.

Improvement favored PNE groups, but cannot be attributed to education aloneHigh

The review reported a tendency toward improvement in groups managed with PNE, but small effect sizes were observed for key variables such as pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia. Pain reductions, particularly after surgery, may be mediated by medications (ranging from opioids to NSAIDs) rather than the educational intervention itself.

Small effect favoring PNE for kinesiophobia (fear of movement)Medium

Significant changes in kinesiophobia were reported 3 months postoperatively in favor of the PNE group versus control in one study, and significant change versus baseline in a single-group study. In another comparison, both groups improved over time with no between-group difference.

Inconsistent effects on pain catastrophizingMedium

One study found a significant result favoring the PNE group (p = 0.036). Another showed post-intervention improvement favoring PNE at 1 month, but the difference evened out by the 3-month follow-up. A single-group study found no significant change versus baseline.

No clear benefit for disability; pain intensity results were mixedMedium

No significant between-group differences in disability were attributed to PNE, though WOMAC scores improved for both groups at 1 month before leveling off. For pain intensity, one study found a significant benefit for PNE added to conventional rehabilitation (at rest and while walking), while other comparisons found no significant between-group differences.

PNE appeared safe with reasonable adherenceLow

No adverse events from the PNE intervention were reported in any study. Reported adherence levels were 84%, 63% at 1-year follow-up, 100%, and 81% across the included studies.

Study Methodology
Study Design
Systematic review conducted per Cochrane Collaboration specifications and the PRISMA checklist; registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021222763). Quality assessed with MINORS and PEDro scales; certainty of evidence assessed with GRADE. Meta-analysis was planned but not performed due to heterogeneity.
Sample Size
Four included studies (selected from 12,573 initial titles / 202 unique records); individual study sample sizes not reported in the text
Duration
Searches conducted between 22 November 2020 and 31 July 2021; included interventions delivered over 1–6 sessions (30–60 minutes each), with follow-ups up to 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year in individual studies
Population
Adults (18 years and older) with osteoarthritis, predominantly radiologically confirmed knee OA, including candidates for total knee arthroplasty/replacement
Outcome Measures
Pain intensity · Pain catastrophizing · Kinesiophobia · Disability (WOMAC) · Quality of life (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire) · Adherence · Adverse events

Strengths

  • Pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42021222763) following Cochrane and PRISMA methodology
  • Comprehensive multi-database search (MEDLINE, OVID, LILACS, Scopus, PEDro, OTseeker, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Google Scholar) with no language or date restriction
  • Independent, blinded study selection and data extraction with a third reviewer for disagreements
  • Formal quality and certainty appraisal using MINORS, PEDro, and GRADE
  • Honest, hedged interpretation that acknowledges medication as a potential confounder of pain results

Limitations

  • Only four studies could be included, limiting the strength of any conclusions
  • A meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in interventions and dosing
  • Effect sizes for key variables (pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia) were small
  • Pain improvements may be confounded by pharmacological treatment (e.g., opioids, NSAIDs), especially post-surgery
  • Small sample sizes and adherence variability across the included studies
  • Stress level, one of the originally planned outcomes, was not addressed by any included study
  • The protocol had to be broadened from clinical trials to also include observational studies due to lack of literature
  • Population was narrow (largely knee OA / arthroplasty candidates), limiting generalizability to other OA joints

Key Takeaways for Patients

What This Means for You

  1. 01Pain neuroscience education (PNE) teaches you how pain works in your nervous system, with the goal of helping you understand your pain and develop better coping strategies.
  2. 02In osteoarthritis — mostly knee OA in patients facing or recovering from knee replacement — PNE showed a small benefit for fear of movement (kinesiophobia), but its effects on pain and catastrophizing were small and inconsistent.
  3. 03Improvements in pain after surgery may be due to medications rather than the education itself, so PNE should be viewed as a supportive part of care, not a standalone cure.
  4. 04PNE was delivered in just 1–6 short sessions, appeared safe with no reported adverse events, and may be a reasonable add-on to standard treatment such as exercise.
  5. 05The evidence is still limited (only four studies), so more research is needed before strong recommendations can be made.

Read the Full Paper

Access the complete peer-reviewed study from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

View Full Study

Related Research

●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis (PNE) and Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation (IMES) in the Management of Myofascial Pain Syndrome and Tendinopathies: A Systematic Review

Trybulski et al.·Journal of Clinical Medicine·2026

This systematic review found that PNE and IMES may improve pain and function in myofascial pain syndrome and tendinopathies, but evidence quality was limited by high risk of bias. Both techniques appear safe with only minor, self-limiting adverse events.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkMeta-analysis

Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xianjun Liu et al.·Frontiers in Psychology·2026

A meta-analysis of 14 RCTs found that CBT-based interventions produce small-to-moderate reductions in pain intensity and the largest, most consistent reductions in pain catastrophizing for chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Central SensitizationRead →
●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Dry Needling in Sports and Sport Recovery: A Systematic Review with an Evidence Gap Map

Kużdżał et al.·Sports Medicine·2025

This systematic review of 24 studies found dry needling effectively reduces pain in injured athletes but shows mixed results for performance enhancement in healthy athletes. Significant research gaps exist for elite athletes and long-term effects.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkMeta-analysis

Effectiveness of Pain Neuroscience Education in Reducing Pain, Disability, Kinesiophobia, and Catastrophizing in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Luisa Medina-Viedma et al.·Medical Sciences (Basel)·2025

A meta-analysis of 15 RCTs (810 patients) found that pain neuroscience education, usually added to exercise or physiotherapy, may reduce pain, disability, kinesiophobia, and catastrophizing in chronic low back pain, though the authors urge caution given small trials and heterogeneity.

Central SensitizationRead →