Trial reportThe journal of pain2023
Who Benefits the Most From Different Psychological Chronic Pain Treatments? An Exploratory Analysis of Treatment Moderators.
Trial report in The journal of pain, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trait responsiveness to verbal suggestions predicts nocebo responding: A meta-analysis.British journal of health psychology · 2025Pooled it
- The Role of Electroencephalogram-Assessed Bandwidth Power in Response to Hypnotic Analgesia.Brain sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Different psychological chronic pain treatments benefit some individuals more than others. Understanding the factors that are associated with treatment response-especially when those factors differ between treatments-may inform more effective patient-treatment matching. This study aimed to identify variables that moderate treatment response to 4 psychological pain interventions in a sample of adults with low back pain or chronic pain associated with multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, acquired amputation, or muscular dystrophy (N = 173). The current study presents the results from secondary exploratory analyses using data from a randomized controlled clinical trial which compared the effects of 4 sessions of cognitive therapy (CT), hypnosis focused on pain reduction (HYP), hypnosis focused on changing pain-related cognitions and beliefs (HYP-CT), and a pain education control condition (ED). The analyses tested the effects of 7 potential treatment moderators. Measures of primary (pain intensity) and secondary (pain interference, depression severity) outcome domains were administered before and after the pain treatments, and potential moderators (catastrophizing, hypnotizability, and electroencephalogram (EEG)-assessed oscillation power across five bandwidths) were assessed at pre-treatment. Moderator effects were tested fitting regression analyses to pre- to post-treatment changes in the three outcome variables. The study findings, while preliminary, support the premise that pre-treatment measures of hypnotizability and EEG brain activity predict who is more (or less) likely to respond to different psychological pain treatments. If additional research replicates the findings, it may be possible to better match patients to their more individually suitable treatment, ultimately improving pain treatment outcomes. PERSPECTIVE: Pre-treatment measures of hypnotizability and EEG-assessed brain activity predicted who was more (or less) likely to respond to different psychological pain treatments. If these findings are replicated in future studies, they could inform the development of patient-treatment matching algorithms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.