Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35354560›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022

Psychological interventions for chronic, non-specific low back pain: systematic review with network meta-analysis.

Emma Kwan-Yee Ho, Lingxiao Chen, Milena Simic, Claire Elizabeth Ashton-James, Josielli Comachio, Daniel Xin Mo Wang, Jill Alison Hayden, Manuela Loureiro Ferreira, Paulo Henrique Ferreira

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
33.6field-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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 203 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Efficacy of psychological interventions on sleep in children and adolescents with chronic pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Therapist-guided remote versus in-person cognitive behavioural therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Emma Kwan-Yee HoSydney Musculoskeletal Health, School of Health Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia emma.ho@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-2479-0081
Lingxiao ChenSydney Musculoskeletal Health, The Kolling Institute, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7721-0493
Milena SimicSydney Musculoskeletal Health, School of Health Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5387-3986
Claire Elizabeth Ashton-JamesSydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5547-4295
Josielli ComachioSydney Musculoskeletal Health, School of Health Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3286-6998
Daniel Xin Mo WangSydney Musculoskeletal Health, School of Health Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5921-0262
Jill Alison HaydenDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7026-144X
Manuela Loureiro FerreiraSydney Musculoskeletal Health, The Kolling Institute, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3479-0683
Paulo Henrique FerreiraSydney Musculoskeletal Health, School of Health Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5861-7770
The University of Sydney · AUDalhousie University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain.

designSystematic review with network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from database inception to 31 January 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions with any comparison intervention in adults with chronic, non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and confidence in the evidence. Primary outcomes were physical function and pain intensity. A random effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach was performed at post-intervention (from the end of treatment to <2 months post-intervention); and at short term (≥2 to <6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥6 to <12 months post-intervention), and long term follow-up (≥12 months post-intervention). Physiotherapy care was the reference comparison intervention. The design-by-treatment interaction model was used to assess global inconsistency and the Bucher method was used to assess local inconsistency.

results97 randomised controlled trials involving 13 136 participants and 17 treatment nodes were included. Inconsistency was detected at short term and mid-term follow-up for physical function, and short term follow-up for pain intensity, and were resolved through sensitivity analyses. For physical function, cognitive behavioural therapy (standardised mean difference 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.44), and pain education (0.62, 0.08 to 1.17), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important improvements at post-intervention (moderate quality evidence). The most sustainable effects of treatment for improving physical function were reported with pain education delivered with physiotherapy care, at least until mid-term follow-up (0.63, 0.25 to 1.00; low quality evidence). No studies investigated the long term effectiveness of pain education delivered with physiotherapy care. For pain intensity, behavioural therapy (1.08, 0.22 to 1.94), cognitive behavioural therapy (0.92, 0.43 to 1.42), and pain education (0.91, 0.37 to 1.45), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important effects at post-intervention (low to moderate quality evidence). Only behavioural therapy delivered with physiotherapy care maintained clinically important effects on reducing pain intensity until mid-term follow-up (1.01, 0.41 to 1.60; high quality evidence).

conclusionsFor people with chronic, non-specific low back pain, psychological interventions are most effective when delivered in conjunction with physiotherapy care (mainly structured exercise). Pain education programmes (low to moderate quality evidence) and behavioural therapy (low to high quality evidence) result in the most sustainable effects of treatment; however, uncertainty remains as to their long term effectiveness. Although inconsistency was detected, potential sources were identified and resolved. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019138074.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyLow Back PainAdultHumansPsychosocial InterventionResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID35354560
PMCPMC8965745
OpenAlexW4220653098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.