Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34624159›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2022

Longitudinal outcome evaluations of Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Treatment programmes for patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stefan Elbers, Harriët Wittink, Sophie Konings, Ulrike Kaiser, Jos Kleijnen, Jan Pool, Albère Köke, Rob Smeets

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of pain (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Towards an individualised approach to pain management in inflammatory arthritis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Continuity of pain clinic care among rural and urban veterans.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Stefan ElbersResearch group Lifestyle & Health, Research Centre Healthy and Sustainable Living, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8928-4307
Harriët WittinkResearch group Lifestyle & Health, Research Centre Healthy and Sustainable Living, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5592-2879
Sophie KoningsDepartment of Health Innovation and Technology, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9718-0583
Ulrike KaiserComprehensive Pain Center, Medical Faculty Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9701-9028
Jos KleijnenDepartment of Family Medicine, Research School CAPHRI, Faculty of Health, Life Sciences and Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jan PoolResearch group Lifestyle & Health, Research Centre Healthy and Sustainable Living, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9240-4488
Albère KökeDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Research School CAPHRI, Faculty of Health, Life Sciences and Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4546-4576
Rob SmeetsDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Research School CAPHRI, Faculty of Health, Life Sciences and Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9503-366X
University of Applied Sciences Utrecht · NLMaastricht University · NLFontys University of Applied Sciences · NLUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEZuyd University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesAlthough Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Treatment (IMPT) programmes share a biopsychosocial approach to increase the wellbeing of patients with chronic pain, substantial variation in content and duration have been reported. In addition, it is unclear to what extent any favourable health outcomes are maintained over time. Therefore, our first aim was to identify and analyse the change over time of patient-related outcome measures in cohorts of patients who participated in IMPT programmes. Our second aim was to acquire insight into the heterogeneity of IMPT programmes. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: The study protocol was registered in Prospero under CRD42018076093. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Cinahl from inception to May 2020. All study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were independently performed by two researchers. Study cohorts were eligible if they included adult patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain for at least 3 months. We assessed the change over time, by calculating pre-post, post-follow-up and pre-follow-up contrasts for seven different patient-reported outcome domains. To explore the variability between the IMPT programmes, we summarized the patient characteristics and treatment programmes using the intervention description and replication checklist.

resultsThe majority of the 72 included patient cohorts significantly improved during treatment. Importantly, this improvement was generally maintained at follow-up. In line with our expectations and with previous studies, we observed substantial methodological and statistical heterogeneity.

conclusionsThis study shows that participation in an IMPT programme is associated with considerable improvements in wellbeing that are generally maintained at follow-up. The current study also found substantial heterogeneity in dose and treatment content, which suggests different viewpoints on how to optimally design an IMPT programme. SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides insight into the different existing approaches regarding the dose and content of IMPT programs. This analysis contributes to an increased understanding of the various approaches by which a biopsychosocial perspective on chronic pain can be translated to treatment programs. Furthermore, despite theoretical and empirical assertions regarding the difficulty to maintain newly learned health behaviors over time, the longitudinal analysis of health outcomes did not find a relapse pattern for patients who participated in IMPT programs.

Indexed as

Chronic PainMusculoskeletal PainAdultHumansOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID34624159
PMCPMC9297911
OpenAlexW3203085884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.