We are all in this together—whole of community pain science education campaigns to promote better management of persistent pain

Persistent pain is a major public health issue—estimated to affect a quarter of the world's population. Public understanding of persistent pain is based on outdated biomedical models, laden with misconceptions that are contrary to best evidence. This understanding is a barrier to effective pain management. Thus, there have been calls for public health-based interventions to address these misconceptions. Previous pain-focussed public education campaigns have targeted pain beliefs and behaviours that are thought to promote recovery, such as staying active. However, prevailing pain-related misconceptions render many of these approaches counter-intuitive, at best. Pain Science Education improves understanding of ‘how pain works’ and has been demonstrated to improve pain and disability outcomes. Extending Pain Science Education beyond the clinic to the wider community seems warranted. Learning from previous back pain-focussed and other public health educational campaigns could optimise the potential benefit of such a Pain Science Education campaign. Pain Science Education-grounded campaigns have been delivered in Australia and the UK and show promise, but robust evaluations are needed before any firm conclusions on their population impact can be made. Several challenges exist going forward. Not least is the need to ensure all stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of Pain Science Education public messaging campaigns. Furthermore, it is crucial that campaigns are undertaken through a health equity lens, incorporating underrepresented communities to ensure that any intervention does not widen existing health inequalities associated with persistent pain. Perspective: Public misconceptions about pain are a significant public health challenge and a viable intervention target to reduce the personal, social, and economic burden of persistent pain. Adaptation of Pain Science Education, which improves misconceptions in a clinical setting, into the public health setting seems a promising approach to explore

Movement of environmental threats modifies the relevance of the defensive eye-blink in a spatially-tuned manner.

Subcortical reflexive motor responses are under continuous cortical control to produce the most effective behaviour. For example, the excitability of brainstem circuitry subserving the defensive hand-blink reflex (HBR), a response elicited by intense somatosensory stimuli to the wrist, depends on a number of properties of the eliciting stimulus. These include face-hand proximity, which has allowed the description of an HBR response field around the face (commonly referred to as a defensive peripersonal space, DPPS), as well as stimulus movement and probability of stimulus occurrence. However, the effect of stimulus-independent movements of objects in the environment has not been explored. Here we used virtual reality to test whether and how the HBR-derived DPPS is affected by the presence and movement of threatening objects in the environment. In two experiments conducted on 40 healthy volunteers, we observed that threatening arrows flying towards the participant result in DPPS expansion, an effect directionally-tuned towards the source of the arrows. These results indicate that the excitability of brainstem circuitry subserving the HBR is continuously adjusted, taking into account the movement of environmental objects. Such adjustments fit in a framework where the relevance of defensive actions is continually evaluated, to maximise their survival value

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS

Neural representations and the cortical body matrix:implications for sports medicine and future directions.

Neural representations, or neurotags, refer to the idea that networks of brain cells, distributed across multiple brain areas, work in synergy to produce outputs. The brain can be considered then, a complex array of neurotags, each influencing and being influenced by each other. The output of some neurotags act on other systems, for example, movement, or on consciousness, for example, pain. This concept of neurotags has sparked a new body of research into pain and rehabilitation. We draw on this research and the concept of a cortical body matrix-a network of representations that subserves the regulation and protection of the body and the space around it-to suggest important implications for rehabilitation of sports injury and for sports performance. Protective behaviours associated with pain have been reinterpreted in light of these conceptual models. With a particular focus on rehabilitation of the injured athlete, this review presents the theoretical underpinnings of the cortical body matrix and its application within the sporting context. Therapeutic approaches based on these ideas are discussed and the efficacy of the most tested approaches is addressed. By integrating current thought in pain and cognitive neuroscience related to sports rehabilitation, recommendations for clinical practice and future research are suggested

Are people who do yoga any better at a motor imagery task than those who do not?

Background: Yoga is a popular recreational activity in Western society and there is an abundance of literature suggesting that yoga may be beneficial for people with a chronic pain disorder. Despite consistently positive results in the literature, the mechanisms of effect are unclear. On the grounds that chronic pain is associated with disruptions of brain-grounded maps of the body, a possible mechanism of yoga is to refine these braingrounded maps. A left/right body part judgement task is an established way of interrogating these brain-grounded maps of the body. Objective: To determine if people who do regular yoga practice perform better at a left/right judgement task than people who do not. Methods: Previously collected, cross-sectional data were used. Using a case-control design, participants who reported taking part in regular yoga were selected against age, gender, neck pain and arm pain-matched controls. Participants viewed 40 photographs of a model with their head turned to the left or right, and were asked to judge the direction of neck rotation. They then completed a left/right-hand judgement task. Results: Of the 1737 participants, 86 of them reported regularly taking part in yoga. From the remaining participants, 86 matched controls were randomly selected from all matched controls. There was no difference between Groups (yoga and no yoga) for either response time ( p=0.109) or accuracy ( p=0.964). There was a difference between Tasks; people were faster (p&lt;0.001) and more accurate (p=0.001) at making left/right neck rotation judgements than they were at making left/right-hand judgements, regardless of group. Conclusions People who do regular yoga perform no differently in a left/right judgement task than people who do not.</p

Defensive reflexes in people with pain – a biomarker of the need to protect? A meta-analytical systematic review

Upregulation of defensive reflexes such as the nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) has been attributed to sensitisation of peripheral and spinal nociceptors and are often considered biomarkers of pain. Experimental modulation of defensive reflexes raises the possibility that they might be better conceptualised as markers of descending cognitive control. Despite strongly held views on both sides and several narrative reviews, there has been no attempt to evaluate the evidence in a systematic manner. We undertook a meta-analytical systematic review of the extant English-language literature from inception. Thirty-six studies satisfied our a priori criteria. Seventeen were included in the meta-analysis. Reflexive threshold was lower in people with clinical pain than it was in pain-free controls, but reflex size, latency and duration were unaffected. The pattern of difference was not consistent with sensitisation of nociceptive neurones, as these changes were not isolated to the affected body-part, but was more consistent with top-down cognitive control reflective of heightened protection of body tissue. The pattern of modulation is dependent on potentially complex evaluative mechanisms. We offer recommendations for future investigations and suggest that defensive reflex threshold may reflect a biomarker of a broader psychological construct related to bodily protection, rather than sensitisation of primary nociceptors, spinal nociceptors or pain.SBW was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award, Maurice de Rohan Scholarship, Ian Gould Scholarship and an Australian Bicentennial Scholarship. LG was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (PBBEP1-144848). GLM was supported by a Principal Research Fellowship from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia (ID 1061279); this work was supported by a project grant from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia to GLM (ID 1008017)

Integrating self-localization, proprioception, pain, and performance

The ability to know where our own body and body parts are in space is often taken for granted, yet it is of fundamental importance for the majority of our everyday activities, let alone high performance activities such as dancing. This review focuses on the concept of self-localization, the monitoring of the space surrounding one's body, and the disruptions that occur in the presence of pain. A conceptual model is presented of the cortical body matrix with which to consider self-localization; also provided are its historical context, underlying assumptions, and current limitations. Issues described include the neurophysiological and behavioral background to the cortical body matrix model, its application to pain and performance, and the rapidly growing use of bodily illusions to investigate how it is that we know where we are, that we exist in a given location, and that we can interact with the space that surrounds us. Recent insights are drawn on from behavioral, clinical, neuroimaging, and physiological research. Spatial performance is discussed in people with and without pain and its relevance for prevention of injuries, the role of pain during performance, and pain education for dancers and their teachers

People with chronic facial pain perform worse than controls at a facial emotion recognition task, but it is not all about the emotion.

Alexithymia, or a lack of emotional awareness, is prevalent in some chronic pain conditions and has been linked to poor recognition of others' emotions. Recognising others' emotions from their facial expression involves both emotional and motor processing, but the possible contribution of motor disruption has not been considered. It is possible that poor performance on emotional recognition tasks could reflect problems with emotional processing, motor processing or both. We hypothesised that people with chronic facial pain would be less accurate in recognising others' emotions from facial expressions, would be less accurate in a motor imagery task involving the face, and that performance on both tasks would be positively related. A convenience sample of 19 people (15 females) with chronic facial pain and 19 gender-matched controls participated. They undertook two tasks; in the first task, they identified the facial emotion presented in a photograph. In the second, they identified whether the person in the image had a facial feature pointed towards their left or right side, a well-recognised paradigm to induce implicit motor imagery. People with chronic facial pain performed worse than controls at both tasks (Facially Expressed Emotion Labelling (FEEL) task P &lt; 0·001; left/right judgment task P &lt; 0·001). Participants who were more accurate at one task were also more accurate at the other, regardless of group (P &lt; 0·001, r(2)  = 0·523). Participants with chronic facial pain were worse than controls at both the FEEL emotion recognition task and the left/right facial expression task and performance covaried within participants. We propose that disrupted motor processing may underpin or at least contribute to the difficulty that facial pain patients have in emotion recognition and that further research that tests this proposal is warranted