ArticleRegional anesthesia and pain medicine2026
Randomized controlled trial of medical assistant-coached behavioral intervention for chronic pain.
Article in Regional anesthesia and pain medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic spinal pain with widespread symptoms often responds poorly to peripherally focused treatments. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can help but typically yields modest effects. This trial evaluated whether adding resilience-enhancing activities to medical assistant-coached CBT (PRISM-CBT) improves outcomes.
methodsAdults with spinal pain and fibromyalgia symptoms were randomized to PRISM-CBT (n=119), standard CBT (n=120), or usual care (UC; n=60). The primary outcome was the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised (FIQR) global impact score at 8 weeks (0-100; higher=worse). Secondary outcomes were pain interference and pain severity measured with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (0-10; higher=worse).
resultsThe primary outcome showed no difference between PRISM-CBT and usual care at 8 weeks, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.20 points (95% CI -4.81 to 5.20, p=0.939). Yet, by 12 months, PRISM-CBT demonstrated a 7.4-point greater improvement compared with usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 14.64, p=0.045) and a 4.8-point greater improvement versus CBT at 8 weeks (95% CI 0.00 to 9.57, p=0.050). PRISM-CBT produced the most consistent benefit in BPI pain interference. Compared with usual care, interference was lower by 0.88 points at both 8 weeks (95% CI 0.25 to 1.50, p=0.006) and 6 months (95% CI 0.23 to 1.54, p=0.009) and by 1.42 points at 12 months (95% CI 0.53 to 2.32, p=0.002). Compared with standard CBT, interference was lower at 8 weeks (0.98 points, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.57, p=0.001), 6 months (0.63 points, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.25, p=0.045), and 12 months (1.92 points, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.76, p<0.001). BPI pain severity also favored PRISM-CBT, with greater improvements of 0.56 points vs usual care at 6 months (95% CI 0.03 to 1.08, p=0.039) and 0.86 points vs CBT at 12 months (95% CI 0.19 to 1.53, p=0.011).
conclusionsThis scalable, medical assistant-coached digital program shows promising benefits, including greater reductions in pain interference and a long-term improvement in global symptom burden, despite no difference at the primary endpoint.
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.