BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain, a disabling and distressing condition, is common in adults. It is a global public health problem and economic burden on health and social care systems and on people with chronic pain. Psychological treatments aim to reduce pain, disability and distress. This review updates and extends its previous version, published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic pain in adults (age > 18 years) compared with active controls, or waiting list/treatment as usual (TAU).
SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to 16 April 2020. We also examined reference lists and trial registries, and searched for studies citing retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of psychological treatments compared with active control or TAU of face-to-face therapies for adults with chronic pain. We excluded studies of headache or malignant disease, and those with fewer than 20 participants in any arm at treatment end.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more authors rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged quality of evidence (GRADE). We compared cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural therapy (BT), and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with active control or TAU at treatment end, and at six month to 12 month follow-up. We did not analyse the few trials of other psychological treatments. We assessed treatment effectiveness for pain intensity, disability, and distress. We extracted data on adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment.
MAIN RESULTS: We added 41 studies (6255 participants) to 34 of the previous review's 42 studies, and now have 75 studies in total (9401 participants at treatment end). Most participants had fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, or mixed chronic pain. Most risk of bias domains were at high or unclear risk of bias, with selective reporting and treatment expectations mostly at unclear risk of bias. AEs were inadequately recorded and/or reported across studies. CBT The largest evidence base was for CBT (59 studies). CBT versus active control showed very small benefit at treatment end for pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.01; 3235 participants; 23 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04; 2543 participants; 19 studies; moderate-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.00; 3297 participants; 24 studies; moderate-quality evidence). We found small benefits for CBT over TAU at treatment end for pain (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.10; 2572 participants; 29 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.19; 2524 participants; 28 studies; low-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.24; 2559 participants; 27 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Effects were largely maintained at follow-up for CBT versus TAU, but not for CBT versus active control. Evidence quality for CBT outcomes ranged from moderate to low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for both comparisons. BT We analysed eight studies (647 participants). We found no evidence of difference between BT and active control at treatment end (pain SMD -0.67, 95% CI -2.54 to 1.20, very low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.54, very low-quality evidence; or distress SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.01, very low-quality evidence). At follow-up, effects were similar. We found no evidence of difference between BT and TAU (pain SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.17, low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19, moderate-quality evidence; distress SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.54, low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, we found one to three studies with no evidence of difference between BT and TAU. We rated evidence for all BT versus active control outcomes as very low quality; for BT versus TAU. Evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for BT versus active control. No studies of BT versus TAU reported AEs. ACT We analysed five studies (443 participants). There was no evidence of difference between ACT and active control for pain (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.11, very low-quality evidence), disability (SMD -1.51, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.03, very low-quality evidence) or distress (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.07, very low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, there was no evidence of effect for pain or distress (both very low-quality evidence), but two studies showed a large benefit for reducing disability (SMD -2.56, 95% CI -4.22 to -0.89, very low-quality evidence). Two studies compared ACT to TAU at treatment end. Results should be interpreted with caution. We found large benefits of ACT for pain (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.09, very low-quality evidence), but none for disability (SMD -1.39, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.41, very low-quality evidence), or distress (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -2.51 to 0.20, very low-quality evidence). Lack of data precluded analysis at follow-up. We rated evidence quality for AEs to be very low. We encourage caution when interpreting very low-quality evidence because the estimates are uncertain and could be easily overturned.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found sufficient evidence across a large evidence base (59 studies, over 5000 participants) that CBT has small or very small beneficial effects for reducing pain, disability, and distress in chronic pain, but we found insufficient evidence to assess AEs. Quality of evidence for CBT was mostly moderate, except for disability, which we rated as low quality. Further trials may provide more precise estimates of treatment effects, but to inform improvements, research should explore sources of variation in treatment effects. Evidence from trials of BT and ACT was of moderate to very low quality, so we are very uncertain about benefits or lack of benefits of these treatments for adults with chronic pain; other treatments were not analysed. These conclusions are similar to our 2012 review, apart from the separate analysis of ACT.
BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain is common and its treatment costly. Both group and individual physiotherapy interventions which incorporate exercise aim to reduce pain and disability. Do the additional time and costs of individual physiotherapy result in superior outcomes?
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of group and individual physiotherapy including exercise on musculoskeletal pain and disability.
METHODS: Eleven electronic databases were searched by two independent reviewers. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with musculoskeletal conditions which compared group and individual physiotherapy interventions that incorporated exercise were eligible. Study quality was assessed using the PEDro scale by two independent reviewers, and treatment effects were compared by meta-analyses.
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs were eligible, including patients with low back pain (7 studies), neck pain (4), knee pain (2) and shoulder pain (1). We found no clinically significant differences in pain and disability between group and individual physiotherapy involving exercise.
CONCLUSIONS: Only small, clinically irrelevant differences in pain or disability outcomes were found between group and individual physiotherapy incorporating exercise. Since all but one study included other interventions together with exercise in either the group or individual arm, deciphering the unique effect of the way in which exercise is delivered is difficult. Group interventions may need to be considered more often, given their similar effectiveness and potentially lower healthcare costs.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In 2008, the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) found limited evidence on the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture for the management of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) or neck pain and associated disorders (NAD).
PURPOSE: To update findings of the Neck Pain Task Force examining the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, and acupuncture for the management of WAD or NAD.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review and best evidence synthesis.
SAMPLE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies comparing manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture to other interventions, placebo/sham, or no intervention.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-rated or functional recovery, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes, or adverse events.
METHODS: We systematically searched five databases from 2000 to 2014. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were stratified by the intervention's stage of development (exploratory versus evaluation) and synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. Funding was provided by the Ministry of Finance.
RESULTS: We screened 8551 citations, 38 studies were relevant, and 22 had a low risk of bias. Evidence from seven exploratory studies suggests that: 1) for recent but not persistent NAD I-II: thoracic manipulation offers short-term benefits; 2) for persistent NAD I-II: technical parameters of cervical mobilization (e.g., direction or site of manual contact) do not impact outcomes, while one session of cervical manipulation is similar to Kinesiotaping; and 3) for NAD I-II: strain-counterstrain treatment is no better than placebo. Evidence from 15 evaluation studies suggests that: 1) for recent NAD I-II: cervical and thoracic manipulation provides no additional benefit to high-dose supervised exercises; Swedish/clinical massage adds benefit to self-care advice; 2) for persistent NAD I-II: home-based cupping massage has similar outcomes to home-based muscle relaxation; low-level laser therapy (LLLT) does not offer benefits; Western acupuncture provides similar outcomes to non-penetrating placebo electroacupuncture; needle acupuncture provides similar outcomes to sham-penetrating acupuncture; 3) for WAD I-II: needle electroacupuncture offers similar outcomes as simulated electroacupuncture; and 4) for recent NAD III: a semi-rigid cervical collar with rest and graded strengthening exercises lead to similar outcomes; LLLT does not offer benefits.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review adds new evidence to the Neck Pain Task Force and suggests that mobilization, manipulation, and clinical massage are effective interventions for the management of neck pain. It also suggests that electroacupuncture, strain-counterstrain, relaxation massage, and some passive physical modalities (heat, cold, diathermy, hydrotherapy, ultrasound) are not effective and should not be used to manage neck pain.
BACKGROUND: Although research on non-surgical treatments for neck pain (NP) is progressing, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for this population. Addressing cognitive and behavioural factors might reduce the clinical burden and the costs of NP in society.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of CBT among individuals with subacute and chronic NP. Specifically, the following comparisons were investigated: (1) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list controls; (2) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus other types of interventions; (3) cognitive-behavioural therapy in addition to another intervention (e.g. physiotherapy) versus the other intervention alone.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2014. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the use of CBT in adults with subacute and chronic NP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 randomised trials (836 participants) in this review. Four trials (40%) had low risk of bias, the remaining 60% of trials had a high risk of bias.The quality of the evidence for the effects of CBT on patients with chronic NP was from very low to moderate. There was low quality evidence that CBT was better than no treatment for improving pain (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to -0.16), disability (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.01), and quality of life (SMD -0.93, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.31) at short-term follow-up, while there was from very low to low quality evidence of no effect on various psychological indicators at short-term follow-up. Both at short- and intermediate-term follow-up, CBT did not affect pain (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.21, low quality, at short-term follow-up; MD -0.89, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.94, low quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) or disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.20, moderate quality, at short-term follow-up; SMD -0.24, 95% CI-0.54 to 0.07, moderate quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) compared to other types of interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions for improving kinesiophobia at intermediate-term follow-up (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.08, I(2) = 0%). Finally, there was very low quality evidence that CBT in addition to another intervention did not differ from the other intervention alone in terms of effect on pain (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.02) and disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.36) at short-term follow-up.For patients with subacute NP, there was low quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.00), while no difference was found in terms of effect on disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.12) and kinesiophobia.None of the included studies reported on adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With regard to chronic neck pain, CBT was found to be statistically significantly more effective for short-term pain reduction only when compared to no treatment, but these effects could not be considered clinically meaningful. When comparing both CBT to other types of interventions and CBT in addition to another intervention to the other intervention alone, no differences were found. For patients with subacute NP, CBT was significantly better than other types of interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up, while no difference was found for disability and kinesiophobia. Further research is recommended to investigate the long-term benefits and risks of CBT including for the different subgroups of subjects with NP.
BACKGROUND: Neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP) are common symptoms bothering people in daily life. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used to treat various symptoms and diseases in China and has been demonstrated to be effective. The objective of the present study was to review and analyze the existing data about pain and disability in TCM treatments for NP and LBP.
METHODS: Studies were identified by a comprehensive search of databases, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, up to September 1, 2013. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM in managing NP and LBP.
RESULTS: Seventy five randomized controlled trials (n = 11077) were included. Almost all of the studies investigated individuals experiencing chronic NP (CNP) or chronic LBP (CLBP). We found moderate evidence that acupuncture was more effective than sham-acupuncture in reducing pain immediately post-treatment for CNP (visual analogue scale (VAS) 10 cm, mean difference (MD) = -0.58 (-0.94, -0.22), 95% confidence interval, p = 0.01), CLBP (standardized mean difference = -0.47 (-0.77, -0.17), p = 0.003), and acute LBP (VAS 10 cm, MD = -0.99 (-1.24, -0.73), p< 0.001). Cupping could be more effective than waitlist in VAS (100 mm) (MD = -19.10 (-27.61, -10.58), p < 0. 001) for CNP or medications (e.g. NSAID) for CLBP (MD = -5.4 (-8.9, -0.19), p = 0.003). No serious or life-threatening adverse effects were found.
CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture, acupressure, and cupping could be efficacious in treating the pain and disability associated with CNP or CLBP in the immediate term. Gua sha, tai chi, qigong, and Chinese manipulation showed fair effects, but we were unable to draw any definite conclusions, and further research is still needed. The efficacy of tuina and moxibustion is unknown because no direct evidence was obtained. These TCM modalities are relatively safe.
OBJECTIVE: Review the effectiveness of group visits (appointments of multiple patients) on quality of life, function, self-efficacy, utilization, and biophysical outcomes in randomized controlled trials of patients with chronic conditions. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE((R)), Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to January 2013 for English-language trials of educational group visits led by non-prescribing facilitators (e.g., peer educators). RESULTS: We report on 80 arthritis/falls (n=22), asthma/COPD (n=10), CHF/hypertension (n=12), diabetes (n=29), multiple conditions (n=4), and pain (n=4) studies. We found moderate evidence of improved short-term self-efficacy in patients with arthritis (10 studies) and diabetes (10 studies). We found no consistent evidence of improved quality of life; however a moderately strong body of evidence suggests peer-led community-based programs might improve quality of life and utilization in patients with multiple chronic conditions. Meta-analyses found short- (14 studies; mean change HbA1c=-0.27, CI=-0.44, 0.11) and long-term (10 studies; mean change HbA1c=-0.23, CI=-0.44, -0.02) glycemic improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Group visits may improve self-efficacy and glycemic control. There was little consistent evidence of improved quality of life, functional status, or utilization. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Group visits represent a reasonable alternative for educating patients with chronic illness, though varied participation/retention suggests they should not be the sole alternative.
BACKGROUND: Neck disorders are common, disabling, and costly. The effectiveness of patient education strategies is unclear.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the short- to long-term effects of therapeutic patient education (TPE) strategies on pain, function, disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, patient satisfaction, knowledge transfer, or behaviour change in adults with neck pain associated with whiplash or non-specific and specific mechanical neck pain with or without radiculopathy or cervicogenic headache.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched computerised bibliographic databases (inception to 11 July 2010).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating the effectiveness of TPE for acute to chronic neck pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Paired independent review authors conducted selection, data abstraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD). Heterogeneity was assessed; no studies were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS: Of the 15 selected trials, three were rated low risk of bias. Three TPE themes emerged.
Advice focusing on activation: There is moderate quality evidence (one trial, 348 participants) that an educational video of advice focusing on activation was more beneficial for acute whiplash-related pain when compared with no treatment at intermediate-term [RR 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.06)] but not long-term follow-up [0.89 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.21)]. There is low quality evidence (one trial, 102 participants) that a whiplash pamphlet on advice focusing on activation is less beneficial for pain reduction, or no different in improving function and global perceived improvement from generic information given out in emergency care (control) for acute whiplash at short- or intermediate-term follow-up. Low to very low quality evidence (nine trials using diverse educational approaches) showed either no evidence of benefit or difference for varied outcomes. 
Advice focusing on pain & stress coping skills and workplace ergonomics: Very low quality evidence (three trials, 243 participants) favoured other treatment or showed no difference spanning numerous follow-up periods and disorder subtypes.  Low quality evidence (one trial, 192 participants) favoured specific exercise training for chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up.
Self-care strategies: Very low quality evidence (one trial, 58 participants) indicated that self-care strategies did not relieve pain for acute to chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of one trial, this review has not shown effectiveness for educational interventions, including advice to activate, advice on stress-coping skills, workplace ergonomics and self-care strategies. Future research should be founded on sound adult learning theory and learning skill acquisition.
BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a major health problem, accounting for approximately one-quarter of general practice (GP) consultations in the United Kingdom (UK). Exercise and physical activity is beneficial for the most common types of CMP, such as back and knee pain. However, poor adherence to exercise and physical activity may limit long-term effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to improve adherence to exercise and physical activity for people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the trials registers of relevant Cochrane Review Groups. In addition, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index and reference lists of articles to October 2007. We consulted experts for unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating interventions that aimed to improve adherence to exercise and physical activity in adults with pain for three months and over in the axial skeleton or large peripheral joints. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two of the four authors independently assessed the quality of each included trial and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 trials with 8243 participants, mainly with osteoarthritis and spinal pain. Methods used for improving and measuring adherence in the included trials were inconsistent. Two of the 17 trials that compared different types of exercise showed positive effects, suggesting that the type of exercise is not an important factor in improving exercise adherence. Six trials studied different methods of delivering exercise, such as supervising exercise sessions, refresher sessions and audio or videotapes of the exercises to take home. Of these, five trials found interventions improved exercise adherence. Four trials evaluated specific interventions targeting exercise adherence; three of these showed a positive effect on exercise adherence. In eight trials studying self-management programmes, six improved adherence measures. One trial found graded activity was more effective than usual care for improving exercise adherence. Cognitive behavioural therapy was effective in a trial in people with whiplash-associated disorder, but not in trials of people with other CMP. In the trials that showed a positive effect on adherence, association between clinical outcomes and exercise adherence was conflicting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions such as supervised or individualised exercise therapy and self-management techniques may enhance exercise adherence. However, high-quality, randomised trials with long-term follow up that explicitly address adherence to exercises and physical activity are needed. A standard validated measure of exercise adherence should be used consistently in future studies.
BACKGROUND: Many treatments are available for whiplash patients but there is little scientific evidence for their accepted use. Patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) can be classified by the severity of signs and symptoms from Grade 0 (no complaints or physical signs) to Grade 4 (fracture or dislocation).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of conservative treatment for patients with whiplash injuries rated as Grades 1 or 2 (neck and musculoskeletal complaints).
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2006, Issue 3), MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PEDro to November 2006 and screened references of identified randomised trials and relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials published in English, French, German or Dutch, that included patients with a whiplash-injury, conservative interventions, outcomes of pain, global perceived effect or participation in daily activities.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality using the Delphi criteria and extracted the data onto standardised data-extraction forms. We did not pool the results because of the heterogeneity of the population, intervention and outcomes and lack of data. A pre-planned stratified analysis was performed for three different comparisons.
MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (2344 participants) were included in this update, including nine new studies. A broad variety of conservative interventions were evaluated. Two studies included patients with chronic symptoms (longer than three months), two included subacute (four to six weeks) symptoms, two had undefined duration of symptoms, and 17 studied patients with acute (less than three weeks) symptoms. Only eight studies (33.3%) satisfied one of our criteria of high quality, indicating overall, a poor methodological quality. Interventions were divided into passive (such as rest, immobilisation, ultrasound, etc) and active interventions (such as exercises, act as usual approach, etc.) and were compared with no treatment, a placebo or each other.
Clinical and statistical heterogeneity and lack of data precluded pooling. Individual studies demonstrated effectiveness of one treatment over another, but the comparisons were varied and results inconsistent. Therefore, the evidence neither supports nor refutes the effectiveness of either passive or active treatments to relieve the symptoms of WAD, Grades 1 or 2.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current literature is of poor methodological quality and is insufficiently homogeneous to allow the pooling of results. Therefore, clearly effective treatments are not supported at this time for the treatment of acute, subacute or chronic symptoms of whiplash-associated disorders.
Chronic non-cancer pain, a disabling and distressing condition, is common in adults. It is a global public health problem and economic burden on health and social care systems and on people with chronic pain. Psychological treatments aim to reduce pain, disability and distress. This review updates and extends its previous version, published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES:
To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic pain in adults (age > 18 years) compared with active controls, or waiting list/treatment as usual (TAU).
SEARCH METHODS:
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to 16 April 2020. We also examined reference lists and trial registries, and searched for studies citing retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
RCTs of psychological treatments compared with active control or TAU of face-to-face therapies for adults with chronic pain. We excluded studies of headache or malignant disease, and those with fewer than 20 participants in any arm at treatment end.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two or more authors rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged quality of evidence (GRADE). We compared cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural therapy (BT), and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with active control or TAU at treatment end, and at six month to 12 month follow-up. We did not analyse the few trials of other psychological treatments. We assessed treatment effectiveness for pain intensity, disability, and distress. We extracted data on adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment.
MAIN RESULTS:
We added 41 studies (6255 participants) to 34 of the previous review's 42 studies, and now have 75 studies in total (9401 participants at treatment end). Most participants had fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, or mixed chronic pain. Most risk of bias domains were at high or unclear risk of bias, with selective reporting and treatment expectations mostly at unclear risk of bias. AEs were inadequately recorded and/or reported across studies. CBT The largest evidence base was for CBT (59 studies). CBT versus active control showed very small benefit at treatment end for pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.01; 3235 participants; 23 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04; 2543 participants; 19 studies; moderate-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.00; 3297 participants; 24 studies; moderate-quality evidence). We found small benefits for CBT over TAU at treatment end for pain (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.10; 2572 participants; 29 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.19; 2524 participants; 28 studies; low-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.24; 2559 participants; 27 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Effects were largely maintained at follow-up for CBT versus TAU, but not for CBT versus active control. Evidence quality for CBT outcomes ranged from moderate to low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for both comparisons. BT We analysed eight studies (647 participants). We found no evidence of difference between BT and active control at treatment end (pain SMD -0.67, 95% CI -2.54 to 1.20, very low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.54, very low-quality evidence; or distress SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.01, very low-quality evidence). At follow-up, effects were similar. We found no evidence of difference between BT and TAU (pain SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.17, low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19, moderate-quality evidence; distress SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.54, low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, we found one to three studies with no evidence of difference between BT and TAU. We rated evidence for all BT versus active control outcomes as very low quality; for BT versus TAU. Evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for BT versus active control. No studies of BT versus TAU reported AEs. ACT We analysed five studies (443 participants). There was no evidence of difference between ACT and active control for pain (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.11, very low-quality evidence), disability (SMD -1.51, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.03, very low-quality evidence) or distress (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.07, very low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, there was no evidence of effect for pain or distress (both very low-quality evidence), but two studies showed a large benefit for reducing disability (SMD -2.56, 95% CI -4.22 to -0.89, very low-quality evidence). Two studies compared ACT to TAU at treatment end. Results should be interpreted with caution. We found large benefits of ACT for pain (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.09, very low-quality evidence), but none for disability (SMD -1.39, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.41, very low-quality evidence), or distress (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -2.51 to 0.20, very low-quality evidence). Lack of data precluded analysis at follow-up. We rated evidence quality for AEs to be very low. We encourage caution when interpreting very low-quality evidence because the estimates are uncertain and could be easily overturned.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
We found sufficient evidence across a large evidence base (59 studies, over 5000 participants) that CBT has small or very small beneficial effects for reducing pain, disability, and distress in chronic pain, but we found insufficient evidence to assess AEs. Quality of evidence for CBT was mostly moderate, except for disability, which we rated as low quality. Further trials may provide more precise estimates of treatment effects, but to inform improvements, research should explore sources of variation in treatment effects. Evidence from trials of BT and ACT was of moderate to very low quality, so we are very uncertain about benefits or lack of benefits of these treatments for adults with chronic pain; other treatments were not analysed. These conclusions are similar to our 2012 review, apart from the separate analysis of ACT.
