Observational studyBMJ open2025
The impact of catastrophic thinking on postural stability in individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain: a cross-sectional study in a clinical setting.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Illness perceptions and symptom burden in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a moderated mediation analysis from a self-regulatory perspective.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the relationship between catastrophic thinking and postural stability in individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP); to assess the moderating role of pain duration and intensity; and to investigate the mediating role of fear-avoidance beliefs.
designCross-sectional observational study.
settingOutpatient musculoskeletal and pain rehabilitation clinics.
participantsEighty-six adults aged 18-65 years with CNSNP (mean age: 45.3±10.5 years) were recruited via purposive sampling. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes included postural stability parameters-centre of pressure path length, sway velocity, range of movement in the anterior-posterior and mediolateral directions, and sway area-measured using computerised posturography. Catastrophic thinking was assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Secondary measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI) to evaluate disability, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) to measure pain intensity, the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) to assess fear-related beliefs, and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey to evaluate quality of life. Pain duration and intensity were analysed as moderating variables, and fear-avoidance beliefs were examined as a potential mediator.
resultsModerate positive correlations were found between PCS scores and COP path length (r=0.41, p=0.014), sway velocity (r=0.38, p=0.022) and sway area (r=0.43, p=0.011). Participants with high PCS scores demonstrated significantly worse postural stability than those with low PCS scores. Pain duration (β=0.35, p=0.004) and intensity (β=0.42, p=0.006) significantly moderated this relationship. Fear-avoidance beliefs were statistically identified as a partial mediator of the association between catastrophic thinking and postural stability (indirect effect=0.22; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35).
conclusionsCatastrophic thinking is linked to reduced postural stability in individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain, with pain characteristics and fear-avoidance beliefs potentially influencing this association. These results underscore the importance of psychological factors in balance and support the need for further longitudinal research to inform comprehensive management strategies.
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.