Bibliometric analysis uncovers research trends in chronic pain physiotherapy, indicating a shift toward individualized care.
Background/Objectives: Chronic pain represents a major global health burden and significantly impacts quality of life and functional capacity. Physiotherapy plays a central role in its management, yet the rapid growth of research in this field makes it difficult to identify current trends and emerging directions. The aim of this study was to analyze global research trends in chronic pain physiotherapy using a bibliometric approach. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted using data retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. A predefined search strategy was applied to identify relevant publications. Data were analyzed and visualized using VOSviewer. Co-occurrence analysis of terms based on titles and abstracts was performed using full counting. The most relevant terms were selected using a relevance score threshold, and a thesaurus file was applied to improve data quality. Results: The number of publications increased steadily from 2015 to 2025, indicating growing research interest in chronic pain physiotherapy. Network analysis revealed key research clusters related to clinical interventions, functional assessment, and outcome evaluation. The most prominent and central terms included “pelvic pain”, “neck disability index”, and “radicular pain”. Overlay visualization identified emerging topics such as “stratified care”, “multidisciplinary rehabilitation”, and “psychometric property”, reflecting a shift toward personalized and patient-centered approaches. Conclusions: Research in chronic pain physiotherapy is rapidly expanding, with a clear transition from traditional intervention-focused approaches toward individualized, multidisciplinary, and outcome-driven strategies. These findings provide insight into current research directions and may support clinicians and researchers in identifying future priorities in chronic pain management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jurys et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: