Global Research on Neuropathic Pain Rehabilitation over the Last 20 Years

Su, Xuan; Hu, Hao-Yu; Xu, Chang

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5594512

Neural Plasticity

On this page

Abstract Introduction Data and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Neural Plasticity and Neuropathic Pain

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 | Article ID 5594512 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5594512

Global Research on Neuropathic Pain Rehabilitation over the Last 20 Years

Xuan Su,¹Hao-Yu Hu,^1,2and Chang Xu³

Academic Editor: Changgeng Peng

Received25 Feb 2021

Revised25 Apr 2021

Accepted25 Jun 2021

Published08 Jul 2021

Abstract

Background. Neuropathic pain has long been a very popular and productive field of clinical research. Neuropathic pain is difficult to cure radically because of its complicated etiology and uncertain pathogenesis. As pain worsens and persists, pain recovery techniques become more important, and medication alone is insufficient. No summary of bibliometric studies on neuropathic pain rehabilitation is yet available. The purpose of the present study is to analyze in a systematic manner the trends of neuropathic pain rehabilitation research over the period of 2000–2019. Methods. Studies related to neuropathic pain rehabilitation and published between January 2000 and December 2019 were obtained from the Science Citation Index-Expanded of Web of Science. No restrictions on language, literature type, or species were established. CiteSpace V and Microsoft Excel were used to capture basic information and highlights in the field. Results. Linear regression analysis showed that the number of publications on neuropathic pain rehabilitation significantly increased over time (). The United States showed absolute strength in terms of number of papers published, influence, and cooperation with other countries. Based on the subject categories of the Web of Science, “Rehabilitation” had the highest number of published papers (446), the highest number of citations (10,954), and the highest number of open-access papers (151); moreover, this category and “Clinical Neurology” had the same -index (i.e., 52). “Randomized Controlled Trials” revealed the largest cluster in the cocitation map of references. The latest burst keywords included “Exercise” (2014–2019), “Functional Recovery” (2015–2019), and “Questionnaire” (2015–2019). Conclusion. This study provides valuable information for neuropathic pain rehabilitation researchers seeking fresh viewpoints related to collaborators, cooperative institutions, and popular topics in this field. Some new research trends are also highlighted.

1. Introduction

Neuropathic pain is a very popular and productive field of clinical research. In 2008, the IASP Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) updated its definition of neuropathic pain as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system. Neuropathic pain is a fairly common disorder. Indeed, Pain reported that the best estimate of the prevalence of pain with neuropathic characteristics in the population may be between 6.9 and 10% [1–4]. Neuropathic pain is difficult to cure radically because of its complicated etiology and uncertain pathogenesis. This disease not only affects the quality of life and functions of patients but also increases the incidence of depression and anxiety, resulting in the wastage of medical resources and massive economic burdens [5, 6]. As pain worsens and persists, pain recovery techniques become more important, and medication alone is insufficient [7]. Psychosocial support and cognitive behavioral therapy may also be considered. Neuromodulation technology, minimally invasive technology, kinesiotherapy, traditional regimen, and multimodal management plans have shown good effects on pain management [8–14]. The rehabilitation of neuropathic pain is of great significance in addressing the symptoms and improving the clinical prognosis of patients [15].

No summary of the existing research on neuropathic pain rehabilitation is yet available. Bibliometrics combines mathematics, statistics, and philology to conduct quantitative research and analysis on a certain interdisciplinary field. It is an important academic link to obtain quantifiable, reproducible, and objective data [16]. In addition, bibliometrics can be used as a search tool to analyze the scope of impact of research findings and identify links between relevant and updated research, author networks, and institutions [17]. The Web of Science (WoS) is an online database of scientific citations that can be used to obtain data on citations, subjects, authors, institutions, and impact factors, thereby providing a useful search-and-analysis tool to generate representative data. The CiteSpace can be used to process and export search results directly to analyze published papers. Several articles on cancer rehabilitation, spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation, traumatic brain injury rehabilitation, and total knee arthroplasty rehabilitation have been published [18–21]. This article mainly focused on the rehabilitation of neuropathic pain.

This review analyzes the current publications and development trends of neuropathic pain rehabilitation from the perspective of bibliometrics. The main institutions, extent of international cooperation, current situation, and trends are analyzed, and keyword cluster and world map analyses are used to reveal the research hot spots and leading countries in this field. A detailed bibliometric analysis of neuropathic pain rehabilitation research may help clinicians quickly and accurately classify and understand this field and guide future research directions.

2. Data and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

We collected synonyms related to neuropathic pain and rehabilitation and used “Subject Terms” for retrieval. The screening and downloading of literature for analysis was conducted on November 21, 2020. Literature from the last two decades (years 2000–2019) was downloaded from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) database of WoS.

Our search strategy was as follows: TS= (neuralgia OR neurodynia OR sciatica OR “nerve pain” OR “nerve cut” OR “nerve constriction” OR “nerve inflammation” OR “nerve crush” OR “nerve injury” OR “nerve ligation” OR “neuropathic pain” OR “peripheral neuropathy” OR “diabetic neuropathy” OR “chronic constriction injury”) AND TS= (“rehabilitation” or “physical medicine” or “physical therap” or “occupational therap”).

All of the data in this paper were extracted independently by the author (Xuan Su). EndNote X8 (Bld 7072, Thomson Research Soft, Stamford, CA, USA) and Microsoft Office Excel were used to extract the data to be downloaded from WoS. We strictly followed the established retrieval strategy, extracted the target literature collection, created the citation report, and then obtained the target data. Data on publication count, citation frequency (including self-citations), number of citations per year, number of citations in 2019, -index, open-access papers, and essential science indicator (ESI) top papers were directly obtained data from WOS and used as bibliometric indicators for visual analysis. All of the relevant data and references were stored in text format for subsequent visualization analysis. Publication count refers to the quantitative contribution of an author or institution. The number of citations, which refers to the sum of citations of all items in a set, can indicate the average quality of published papers. The -index, also known as the H-factor, was proposed by Hirsch. This index evaluates authors’ academic achievements in a specific field [22, 23]. For instance, if the -index of an author is 30, all papers published by the author have been cited at least 30 times in 30 papers. Higher -index values indicate more influential and persuasive papers. Open-access papers refer to the number of publications whose peer-reviewed versions are available free of charge from a publisher’s website or repository.

2.2. Inclusion Criteria

In this study, papers published in a wide variety of periodicals, including Pain, Lancet, and Brain, on neuropathic pain rehabilitation were included without restrictions on the type of article or language used. The types of literature mainly included articles, reviews, and proceedings. Both animal and clinical studies were included.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The data were imported into CiteSpace (5.3.R11) in plain text format for analysis. CiteSpace V and Microsoft Excel were used to capture basic information and notable points in the field. The characteristics of the field were then studied in terms of discipline terms and keywords, and the publishing model of papers was assessed in terms of the number of publications in each country and the journal publishers. The frequency and percentage of journal and annual publications in each country were calculated on the basis of year of publication. The variation trends of research hot spots were studied through citation frequencies, keywords, and timeline views. Finally, we analyzed the citation trends of the top 10 countries, top 10 journals, and top 10 research fields to explore publishing patterns. IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to calculate the number of changes and determine whether the data are statistically significant. Linear regression analysis was performed on the data using category as the dependent variable and year as the independent variable. For example, analyze the number of articles published each year. A value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Publication Outputs and Growth Trend

A total of 1,518 papers conforming with the retrieval requirements were collected. Articles and reviews accounted for 94.1% of the total number of articles collected. The remaining literature types included non-article-type documents, including proceedings papers, editorial materials, meeting abstracts, book chapters, early-access articles, corrections, letters, and reprints.

The annual publication volume generally increased with some fluctuations over the years (Figure 1). A statistically significant increase in number of papers published, from 21 articles in 2000 to 140 articles in 2019, was noted (, ), thereby indicating that medical researchers are gradually expanding the field of research on the rehabilitation of neuropathic pain.

From 2000 to 2019, 1,518 papers were published in the field of neuropathic pain rehabilitation (average, 75 papers per year). The number of publications published in 2020 was forecasted on the basis of the growth rate curve of the number of publications by using the formular (), and the predicted number of papers to be published in 2020 was 158.

Among the four 5-year periods established (2000–2004, 2005–2009, 2010–2014, and 2015–2019), the most cited period per paper (5,646 times) was 2000–2004 (Figure 2), likely because this period represents the early stage of rehabilitation professional development, and only a small number of articles were available at the time. Although the number of articles published in this period was only 143, the total number of citations (8,074 times) in this period exceeded that in 2015–2019 (5,691 times). The -index peaked from 2010 to 2014. The citations in 2019 and the number of open-access articles peaked from 2015 to 2019.

3.2. Distribution of National Geography and Institutions

Figure 3 shows a world map of all countries and territories in which studies on neuropathic pain rehabilitation had been published; here, the geographical distribution of publications covered 63 countries and territories. Figure 4(a) shows the extensive cooperation between countries and regions. Table 1 reveals the top 10 countries by number of published papers. The United States demonstrated a strong influence in this field, publishing the largest number of papers and five ESI top papers. Studies published in the United States also showed the largest number of citations (19,543 times), the highest -index (71), and the greatest number of open-access articles (196).

(a)

(b)

Published papers in the field of neuropathic pain rehabilitation involved a total of 2,014 institutions. Table 2 shows the top 10 institutions in terms of number of papers published. The papers of the Harvard University were cited the most (2,278 times), but the papers of the Mayo Clinic, the no. 1 hospital in the United States, were cited the most citations per year (112.85 times), with two ESI papers. The University of Toronto had the highest number of published papers (36), the University of Washington had the highest -index (21), and the University of Pittsburgh had the highest number of open-access articles (15). Figure 4(b) shows the degree of cooperation among the top 10 institutions engaged in neuropathic pain rehabilitation research. According to our analysis of countries and institutions, the Harvard University is the world’s leading university in this field and the center of a cooperative network.

3.3. Analysis of the Top 10 Authors and Cocited Authors

A total of 1,518 papers on neuropathic pain rehabilitation research were written by 6,180 authors. Among the top 10 cocited authors (Table 3), Finnerup NB was cited 113 times, followed by Siddall PJ (95 times), and Dworkin RH (90 times). These authors are active and influential in the field of neuropathic pain rehabilitation. Vera Bril, from the Division of Neurology, Toronto General Hospital in Canada, studied the occurrence and development of diabetes and performed research on various possible neuropathies, including the clinical manifestations, diagnostic characteristics, and management of various sequelae [24–27]. Stefano Tamburin from the Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, found that the use of psychotherapy has a pain-relieving effect on neurological disorders. The author’s team also demonstrated that different forms of psychological intervention measures, including cognitive behavior therapy, hypnosis, cognitive or behavioral techniques, mindfulness, acceptance and commitment therapy, brief interpersonal therapy, and virtual reality interventions, could effectively reduce the morbidity of different pains, such as musculoskeletal pain, fibromyalgia, central poststroke pain, phantom limb pain, pain secondary to SCI, diabetic neuropathy migraines and headaches, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and medically unexplained symptoms [28–32]. In other words, pain is inextricably linked to cognition.

Figure 5 illustrates author and cocited author cooperation maps. These two graphs provide effective and intuitive information that allows readers to observe the collaboration between authors. However, the centrality of cooperation at the author level is generally less than 0.03, thereby indicating that cooperation between researchers is not so close with certain limitations.

(a)

(b)

3.4. Analysis of the Top 10 Cocited References

References are an important component of high-quality papers that not only provides a strong argument for the author’s findings but also expands the information chain and reflects the scientific value of research. In other words, references are an important index that reflects the scientific basis of a paper.

A timeline view of the literature cocitation analysis is shown in Figure 6; here, active clusters named after the index terms cited in the literature are listed. Modularity, which is expressed as value, is a commonly used method to evaluate the strength of the network community structure. In this study, the value was 0.8705. A value higher than 0.3 indicates that the community structure is significant. The largest cluster (#0) was “randomized controlled trials,” followed by “complex regional pain syndrome” (#1), “spinal cord injury” (#2), and “central sensitization” (#3). Despite the fairly wide availability of research on the mechanisms involved in central sensitization or neuroinflammation in patients with chronic low back pain or musculoskeletal pain, the treatment of these issues remains a challenging scientific problem [33–37]. Experts recommend pain neuroscience education, cognitive behavioral therapy, and exercise therapy [38].

3.5. Bibliometric Analysis of the Journals

Over the last 20 years (2000–2019), a total of 585 journals published papers related to neuropathic pain rehabilitation. Active journals are defined as journals with the greatest number of publications within a certain period. As shown in Table 4, the top 10 active journals published 323 articles, accounting for 21.28% of the total number of published papers. Most journals have an impact factor ranging from 2 to 4. The journals with the highest and lowest impact factors were Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair (IF 2019, 3.982) and Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development (IF 2016, 1.277), respectively. Because of the diversity of categories, four journals remained in Q1, thereby indicating that the overall impact factor of published papers in this field is not high. However, some categories such as “rehabilitation” and “exercise science” could be found in Q1.

A dual-map overlay of journals is shown in Figure 7. The figure shows the disciplines covered by the journal in the form of labels. The colored line segment in the dual-map represents the cited connections, and the connection traces the citing journal to the cited journal. The number of authors is shown on the horizontal axis of the ellipse, whereas the number of publications is shown on the vertical axis of the ellipse. Most of the papers were published in journals dedicated to neurology, sports, and ophthalmology (left), and these journals were mostly cited by journals of psychology, education, and society (right).

3.6. Distribution of Keywords

Keywords are the core summary of a paper, which can be analyzed on the topic of the paper. Authors generally believe that the more frequently lexical pairs appear in the same literature, the closer the relationship between these two topics. The most common keywords were diabetes mellitus, neuropathic pain, low back pain, and spinal cord injury (as shown in Figure 8).

The frequent occurrence of keywords over a certain period of time is regarded as an indicator of frontier topics, vigorous development, and emerging trends. Keywords with the strongest citation bursts were derived from CiteSpace, and the results are shown in Figure 9. Here, the top 25 highlighted keywords from 2000 to 2019 are highlighted. Exercise, functional recovery, outcome, and questionnaire appeared to be newly developing research hot spots. The keyword “reflex sympathetic dystrophy,” which appeared only in 2012 had the highest citation burst rate (8.99).

3.7. Analysis of the Subject Categories

The 1,518 papers on neuropathic pain rehabilitation research were allocated to 87 topic categories in WoS. Among the top 20 subject categories (Figure 10), “Rehabilitation” revealed the highest number of published papers (446), citations (10,954), and open-access papers (151). “Anesthesiology” showed the highest number of citations per item (26.64), and Engineering Biomedical demonstrated the highest number of citations per paper (65.42). The -index of Rehabilitation and Clinical Neurology was identical at 52.

Linear regression analysis showed that the percentages statistically increased over time () in the top 20 categories (Rehabilitation, Clinical Neurology, Sport Sciences, Orthopedics, Neurosciences, Surgery, Anesthesiology, Medicine General Internal, Urology nephrology, Oncology, Medicine Research Experimental, Critical Care Medicine, Rheumatology, Pharmacology Pharmacy, Endocrinology Metabolism, Health Care Science Services, Integrative Complementary, Engineering Biomedical, Cell Biology, and Multidisciplinary Sciences).

4. Discussion

4.1. Global Tendency of Neuropathic Pain Rehabilitation Research

In this review, the CiteSpace V software was used to carry out bibliometrics analysis in the field of neuropathic pain rehabilitation. Changes in bibliometric indicators, such as keywords, subject words, authors, countries, and institutions, over a time span of 20 years were then presented in diagrams and tables.

The output of publications showed a gradual annual increase (Figure 1). According to the number of papers published in the field of neuropathic pain rehabilitation in different countries as well as the overview of countries on the world map, the United States was relatively productive in this field of research (599), followed by Canada (113), China (92), and Germany (91). The top 10 countries/regions included five European countries (i.e., Germany, Italy, Netherlands, England, and France), two Asian countries (i.e., China and Turkey), two North American countries (i.e., the USA and Canada), and one Oceanic country (i.e., Australia). Figure 4(a) shows that several countries, especially European Union countries, are closely linked together. A total of 2,014 institutions contributed publications on neuropathic pain rehabilitation research. Nine of the top 10 institutions were found in the United States and one is in Canada. Two nonuniversity institutions, namely, the Mayo Clinic and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, are in the top 10 institutions and published two ESI Top papers and one ESI Top paper, respectively. The United States, as a developed country, is clearly the leader in this field.

4.2. Research Hot Spots and Trends

As an emerging field, rehabilitation medicine has received extensive attention in recent years on account of its important role in SCI, cerebral apoplexy, and osteoarthropathy. We explored emerging topics and concerns in the field of neuropathic pain rehabilitation.

Analysis of the comorbidity map of the references showed that “randomized controlled trials” was the largest cluster, and the other large clusters are as follows:(1)Complex regional pain syndrome: CPRS presents as a type of burning pain and is usually caused by neuropathic pain. Its pathogenesis involves neurogenic inflammation mediated by cytokines and neuropeptides. Studies have shown that spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS), is effective in treating the disease [39, 40](2)Spinal cord injury: chronic neuropathic pain after SCI is a complex disease, and transcranial direct current stimulation is effective in clinical treatment [41]. The latest clinical practice guidelines also point to the use of sensors and mechanical devices can help patients achieve functional movement, enhance recovery, and increase neural plasticity, as well as potential adjuncts [42–44](3)Central sensitization: central sensitization is a kind of hypersensitivity to pain caused by central neural plasticity, which is interwoven with psychoneuroimmunological interactions [34, 35], and is of great significance for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Recent studies have shown that cGMP-dependent protein kinase I, a nociceptor locator, is a key producer of central sensitization and neuropathic pain [45]. We found that activation of microglia attenuated synaptic transmission and reduced neuroinflammation, synaptic function, and neuralgia. Therefore, chemotherapy offers a potential opportunity to explore microglia function and neuropathic pain treatment [46]

Analysis of the keywords with the strongest citation bursts from 2000 to 2019 revealed major hot spots in the field of neuropathic pain rehabilitation (as shown in Figure 6). The top 25 keywords in 2000 included “reflex sympathetic dystrophy,” “complex regional pain syndrome,” “gabapentin,” “diabetic neuropathy,” and “neuralgia.” The top 25 keywords by the end of 2019 included “exercise” (2014–2019), “functional recovery” (2015–2019), “outcome” (2015–2018), and “questionnaire” (2015–2018). These keywords may predict the frontiers of research as follows:(1)Exercise

In recent years, the idea that exercise is good medicine has been widely accepted by the public, and exercise is among the methods recommended for the treatment of neuropathic pain [47]. Although the mechanism of exercise in improving neuropathic pain has been confirmed in animal experiments, the corresponding mechanism in humans is complex and has not been thoroughly studied.

The effect of sports on the improvement of lower back pain, diabetic neuralgia, and pediatric pain has also been affirmed by professionals [48–50]. Exercise therapy can help patients avoid the adverse effects of drug therapy, relieve pain, and improve their quality of life.(2)Functional recovery

No evidence from randomized trials indicates that treatment is necessarily effective. For example, randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the efficacy of glucocorticoids or other immunoregulatory therapies in the treatment of neuralgia muscular atrophy [51]. In one experiment, long-term regular exercise was explored as a means to reduce the neuroanalgesic behavior of mice and, ultimately, promote motor function [52]. Another study investigated the efficacy and functional recovery of SCI neuropathic pain symptoms by using long-term intensive locomotor training [53].(3)Outcome

The efficacy of different interventions in the treatment of neuropathic pain could be evaluated by analyzing data on pain, function, dose, and adverse effects in randomized controlled trials. Knowledge of outcomes can help patients choose the appropriate rehabilitation treatment [54, 55].

4.3. Strength and Limitations

This article is the first to summarize the research current status, geographical distribution, research hot spots, and development trends in neuropathic pain rehabilitation worldwide. Our study encompasses 20 years of data extracted from WoS and analyzed by CiteSpace and, thus, provides strong evidence of the future development of research in this field through keywords and subject categories. The soft power of science and technology of each country was visualized using a world map of the distribution of published papers, institutions, journals, and countries. Analysis of the authors and cited authors could help identify leaders in this domain. However, the limitations of our work must be acknowledged. First, although we believe that WoS is a suitably large database that can provide a wide variety of publications critical to our analysis, future researchers could use other databases, such as Scopus, Embase, Ovid-Medline, and China Knowledge Resource Integrated (CNKI), to explore other potential papers. Future studies can broaden the search scope to include more relevant studies to enrich the literature. Finally, some keywords that did not provide much information, such as risk, model, and system, could not be analyzed.

5. Conclusion

Our understanding of neuropathic pain rehabilitation has advanced remarkably over the last 20 years. Using bibliometric charts, we illustrated the overall structure of scientific research on neuropathic pain rehabilitation and provided comprehensive information related to this field for other investigators. The most recent burst keywords were “exercise,” “functional recovery,” “outcome,” and “questionnaire.” This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of relevant research conducted in the area of neuropathic pain rehabilitation.

Data Availability

All research data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Shanghai Key Lab of Human Performance, Shanghai University of Sport (No. 11DZ2261100), the Key Laboratory Program of Assessment and Regulation of Sport Cognition of the General Administration of Sport of China, and the Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning (Grant/award no. 20204Y0073).

References

N. Attal, M. Lanteri-Minet, B. Laurent, J. Fermanian, and D. Bouhassira, “The specific disease burden of neuropathic pain: results of a French nationwide survey,” Pain, vol. 152, no. 12, pp. 2836–2843, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. van Hecke, S. K. Austin, R. A. Khan, B. H. Smith, and N. Torrance, “Neuropathic pain in the general population: a systematic review of epidemiological studies,” Pain, vol. 155, no. 4, pp. 654–662, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. H. Doth, P. T. Hansson, M. P. Jensen, and R. S. Taylor, “The burden of neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of health utilities,” Pain, vol. 149, no. 2, pp. 338–344, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Torrance, K. D. Lawson, E. Afolabi et al., “Estimating the burden of disease in chronic pain with and without neuropathic characteristics: does the choice between the EQ-5D and SF-6D matter?” Pain, vol. 155, no. 10, pp. 1996–2004, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. H. Dworkin, A. B. O’Connor, J. Kent et al., “Interventional management of neuropathic pain: NeuPSIG recommendations,” Pain, vol. 154, no. 11, pp. 2249–2261, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Haanpää, N. Attal, M. Backonja et al., “NeuPSIG guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment,” Pain, vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 14–27, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Harat, P. Sokal, P. Zieliński, M. Harat, T. Rusicka, and L. Herbowski, “Assessment of economic effectiveness in treatment of neuropathic pain and refractory angina pectoris using spinal cord stimulation,” Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 653–663, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
B. H. Smith and S. N. Raja, “NeuPSIG: investing in solutions to the growing global challenge of neuropathic pain,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 705–708, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Akyuz and O. Kenis, “Physical therapy modalities and rehabilitation techniques in the management of neuropathic pain,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 253–259, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zheng, Z. Chen, M. Sun et al., “A preliminary study of the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation with percutaneous kyphoplasty for thoracolumbar vertebral metastatic tumor treatment,” Medical Science Monitor, vol. 20, pp. 556–563, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Jiang, H. Zhang, M. Fang et al., “Analgesic effects of Chinese Tuina massage in a rat model of pain,” Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1367–1374, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Yao, Z. Li, S. Zhang, Z. Wu, Q. Zhu, and L. Fang, “Effects of Wuqinxi in the patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial,” Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2020, Article ID 1428246, 12 pages, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Lyu, S. Xia, G. W. Lyu et al., “A preliminary study on DRGs and spinal cord of a galanin receptor 2-EGFP transgenic mouse,” Neuropeptides, vol. 79, p. 102000, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Su, K. Sandor, K. Sköld, T. Hökfelt, C. I. Svensson, and K. Kultima, “Identification and quantification of neuropeptides in naïve mouse spinal cord using mass spectrometry reveals [des-Ser 1]-cerebellin as a novel modulator of nociception,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 199–214, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Bouchenaki, M. Bégou, L. Magy, R. Hajj, and C. Demiot, “Pharmacological management of neuropathic pain,” Thérapie, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 633–643, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Blakeman, “Bibliometrics in a digital age: help or hindrance,” Science Progress, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 293–310, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Kokol, H. Blažun Vošner, and J. Završnik, “Application of bibliometrics in medicine: a historical bibliometrics analysis,” Health Information and Libraries Journal, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 125–138, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. L. Stout, C. M. Alfano, C. W. Belter et al., “A bibliometric analysis of the landscape of cancer rehabilitation research (1992-2016),” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 110, no. 8, pp. 815–824, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Liu, N. Liu, M. Zhou, Y. Lu, and F. Li, “Bibliometric analysis of global research on the rehabilitation of spinal cord injury in the past two decades,” Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, vol. 15, pp. 1–14, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Mojgani, M. Jalali, and A. Keramatfar, “Bibliometric study of traumatic brain injury rehabilitation,” Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, pp. 1–18, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-Q. Wang, Y.-Q. Gao, C. Zhang, Y.-J. Xie, J.-X. Wang, and F.-Y. Xu, “A bibliometric analysis using CiteSpace of publications from 1999 to 2018 on patient rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty,” Medical Science Monitor, vol. 26, article e920795, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Lü, T. Zhou, Q. M. Zhang, and H. E. Stanley, “The H-index of a network node and its relation to degree and coreness,” Nature Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, article 10168, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Hirsch, “Does the H index have predictive power?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 49, pp. 19193–19198, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Agnihotri, S. Jalali, M. R. Wilson et al., “The genomic landscape of schwannoma,” Nature Genetics, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 1339–1348, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Bril, “Important advances in neuromuscular research in 2019,” Lancet Neurology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 14–16, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Izenberg, B. A. Perkins, and V. Bril, “Diabetic neuropathies,” Seminars in Neurology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 424–430, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. J. H. Lewis, B. A. Perkins, L. E. Lovblom, R. P. Bazinet, T. M. S. Wolever, and V. Bril, “Effect of omega-3 supplementation on neuropathy in type 1 diabetes: a 12-month pilot trial,” Neurology, vol. 88, no. 24, pp. 2294–2301, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Castelnuovo, E. M. Giusti, G. M. Manzoni et al., “Psychological treatments and psychotherapies in the neurorehabilitation of pain: evidences and recommendations from the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, p. 115, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. P. Staff, G. Cavaletti, B. Islam, M. Lustberg, D. Psimaras, and S. Tamburin, “Platinum-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: from pathogenesis to treatment,” Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System, vol. 24, Supplement 2, pp. S26–S39, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Tamburin, N. Smania, L. Saltuari, V. Hoemberg, and G. Sandrini, “Editorial: new advances in neurorehabilitation,” Frontiers in Neurology, vol. 10, p. 1090, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Zucchella, A. Federico, A. Martini, M. Tinazzi, M. Bartolo, and S. Tamburin, “Neuropsychological testing,” Practical Neurology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 227–237, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Zucchella, E. Mantovani, A. Federico, F. Lugoboni, and S. Tamburin, “Non-invasive brain stimulation for gambling disorder: a systematic review,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 14, p. 729, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Arendt-Nielsen, “Central sensitization in humans: assessment and pharmacology,” Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, vol. 227, pp. 79–102, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. R. Ji, A. Nackley, Y. Huh, N. Terrando, and W. Maixner, “Neuroinflammation and central sensitization in chronic and widespread pain,” Anesthesiology, vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 343–366, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Nijs, L. Leysen, J. Vanlauwe et al., “Treatment of central sensitization in patients with chronic pain: time for change?” Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, vol. 20, no. 16, pp. 1961–1970, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Sanzarello, L. Merlini, M. A. Rosa et al., “Central sensitization in chronic low back pain: a narrative review,” Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 625–633, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. van Griensven, A. Schmid, T. Trendafilova, and M. Low, “Central sensitization in musculoskeletal pain: lost in translation?” The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 592–596, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Nijs, A. Malfliet, K. Ickmans, I. Baert, and M. Meeus, “Treatment of central sensitization in patients with ‘unexplained’ chronic pain: an update,” Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1671–1683, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. H. Knotkova, C. Hamani, and E. Sivanesan, “Neuromodulation for chronic pain,” Lancet, vol. 29, no. 397(10289), pp. 2111–2124, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Harrison, S. Epton, S. Bojanic, A. L. Green, and J. J. FitzGerald, “The efficacy and safety of dorsal root ganglion stimulation as a treatment for neuropathic pain: a literature review,” Neuromodulation, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 225–233, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Li, S. Jirachaipitak, P. Wrigley, H. Xu, and P. Euasobhon, “Transcranial direct current stimulation for spinal cord injury-associated neuropathic pain,” The Korean Journal of Pain, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 156–164, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Mekki, A. D. Delgado, A. Fry, D. Putrino, and V. Huang, “Robotic rehabilitation and spinal cord injury: a narrative review,” Neurotherapeutics, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 604–617, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Khalid, F. Alnajjar, M. Gochoo, A. Renawi, and S. Shimoda, “Robotic assistive and rehabilitation devices leading to motor recovery in upper limb: a systematic review,” Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, pp. 1–15, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. H. Gerber, R. Deshpande, S. Prabhakar et al., “Narrative review of clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation of people with spinal cord injury: 2010-2020,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 501–512, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Wang, S. B. Ma, Z. C. Tian et al., “Nociceptor-localized cGMP-dependent protein kinase I is a critical generator for central sensitization and neuropathic pain,” Pain, vol. 162, no. 1, pp. 135–151, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. H. Yi, Y. U. Liu, K. Liu et al., “Chemogenetic manipulation of microglia inhibits neuroinflammation and neuropathic pain in mice,” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, vol. 92, pp. 78–89, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Bobinski, J. M. Teixeira, K. A. Sluka, and A. R. S. Santos, “Interleukin-4 mediates the analgesia produced by low-intensity exercise in mice with neuropathic pain,” Pain, vol. 159, no. 3, pp. 437–450, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. B. Guo, B. L. Chen, Y. Wang et al., “Meta-analysis of the effect of exercise on neuropathic pain induced by peripheral nerve injury in rat models,” Frontiers in Neurology, vol. 10, p. 636, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Guo, Y. Huang, Y. Zhang, H. Huang, S. Hong, and T. Liu, “Impacts of exercise interventions on different diseases and organ functions in mice,” Journal of Sport and Health Science, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 53–73, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Q. Wang, W. Gu, B. L. Chen et al., “Effects of whole-body vibration exercise for non-specific chronic low back pain: an assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1445–1457, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. van Alfen, B. G. van Engelen, and R. A. Hughes, “Treatment for idiopathic and hereditary neuralgic amyotrophy (brachial neuritis),” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2009, no. 3, article Cd006976, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
D. F. Martins, T. C. Martins, A. P. Batisti et al., “Long-term regular eccentric exercise decreases neuropathic pain-like behavior and improves motor functional recovery in an axonotmesis mouse model: the role of insulin-like growth factor-1,” Molecular Neurobiology, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 6155–6168, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. A. Dugan, B. Schachner, S. Jergova, and J. Sagen, “Intensive locomotor training provides sustained alleviation of chronic spinal cord injury-associated neuropathic pain: a two-year pre-clinical study,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 789–802, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. E. Bartko, G. Heitzinger, N. Pavo et al., “Burden, treatment use, and outcome of secondary mitral regurgitation across the spectrum of heart failure: observational cohort study,” Bmj, vol. 373, p. n1421, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Deshpande, A. Mailis-Gagnon, N. Zoheiry, and S. F. Lakha, “Efficacy and adverse effects of medical marijuana for chronic noncancer pain: systematic review of randomized controlled trials,” Canadian Family Physician, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. e372–e381, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2021 Xuan Su et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1156

Downloads

880

Citations