ArticlePsychology of consciousness (Washington, D.C.)2025
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Hypnosis to Manage Musculoskeletal Pain in Breast Cancer Survivors Taking Aromatase Inhibitors.
Article in Psychology of consciousness (Washington, D.C.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hypnosis at the Crossroads: A Primer of the Past and Visions for the Future.The International journal of clinical and experimental hypnosisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of a three-session hypnosis intervention to manage musculoskeletal pain (MSP) in breast cancer survivors taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs). We hypothesized that patients in the hypnosis group would have lower levels of pain than patients in an attention control group. A secondary outcome was to examine intervention effects on AI adherence. Patients (n=154) were randomly assigned to a hypnosis (n=76; mean) or to an attention control (n=78; mean) group. MSP was measured at five time points (baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) using the BPI-SF (severity, primary outcome), the BPI-SF (interference), the WOMAC, the AUSCAN and the BCPT-MS. AI adherence was measured using eCAPs and self-report (MARS). The hypnosis group had significantly lower BPI-SF severity (p< 0.01) and interference (p< 0.03) scores across assessment points. The AUSCAN [total (p< 0.01), pain (p< 0.01), stiffness (p< 0.04), and function (p< 0.04)] and the BCPT-MS (p< 0.001) scales showed similar results in favor of hypnosis. WOMAC pain (p< 0.02) and stiffness (p< 0.01) subscales were also in favor of the hypnosis group, but differences on WOMAC function were non-significant (p >0.11). AI adherence scores did not differ between the groups (eCAP p >0.80, MARS ps >0.18). Results support hypnosis as efficacious for controlling MSP in breast cancer survivors taking AIs. Hypnosis is brief, has no specific side-effects, can be taught to patients to use on their own, and its beneficial effects persist long after the last intervention session.
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.