Terapias psicológicas para el tratamiento del dolor crónico (excluida la cefalea) en adultos
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007407.pub3Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 14 noviembre 2012see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Review
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Dolor y cuidados paliativos
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
Contributions of authors
AW oversaw the review and authoring of the manuscript, and authored sections of the manuscript. AW, SM and CE all authored sections of the manuscript, extracted data from papers and made quality ratings. SM advised on statistical strategy. All authors contributed to conceptualisation of the review, selection of papers and judging the quality of the studies.
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
No sources of support supplied
External sources
-
Department of Health, UK.
Incentive Scheme Grant
Declarations of interest
Following discussions with the Cochrane Funding Arbiter in 2015/16, we have revised and expanded our declarations of interest to fully comply with the updated Cochrane Commercial Sponsorship Policy (see http://community‐archive.cochrane.org/organisational‐policy‐manual/appendix‐5‐commercial‐sponsorship‐policy).
ACdeCW: UCL London received payment from Astellas Pharma Europe for her to speak about the psychology of pain at a general pain meeting in 2015. She is an author of an included study but was not involved in the data extraction or ratings of bias and quality.
CE attended a meeting of IMMPACT in 2011, an organisation that develops outcome measures and consults on analgesic trial design. IMMPACT receives arm's length funding from numerous pharmacological, charitable, and Governmental bodies (including the FDA). Research funding unrelated to this study was received by the University of Bath Centre for Pain Research from Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare during this review production. Since CE is an author as well as the PaPaS Co‐ordinating Editor at the time of writing, we acknowledge the input of Andrew Moore who acted as Sign Off Editor for this review. CE had no input into the editorial decisions or processes for this review.
SJM: none known.
Acknowledgements
We thank Malcolm Adams and Shona Yates for earlier contributions to the protocol, in particular for discussion on coding. We thank Leslie Hearn for help with data extraction from trials and proofreading, and Iain Edgley for data extraction for catastrophic thinking. We are also grateful to the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care (PaPaS) review group and to the referees for their detailed and helpful feedback.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2020 Aug 14 | Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults | Review | Amanda C de C Williams, Emma Fisher, Leslie Hearn, Christopher Eccleston | |
| 2012 Nov 14 | Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults | Review | Amanda C de C Williams, Christopher Eccleston, Stephen Morley | |
| 2009 Apr 15 | Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults | Review | Christopher Eccleston, Amanda C de C Williams, Stephen Morley | |
| 2008 Oct 08 | Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults | Protocol | Christopher Eccleston, Stephen Morley, Amanda C de C Williams | |
Differences between protocol and review
-
No data were available in the trials on adverse events, withdrawal and escape or emergency analgesia.
-
No dichotomous outcomes were reported so no numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were calculated.
-
No adjustment for reliability of measures was made.
-
Planned subgroup analyses on doses and on different conditions were not undertaken due to lack of data.
-
The criterion in the protocol of a minimum of 10 participants in each arm for entry into analyses was raised to a minimum of 20, given the demonstrated association between small numbers and bias (Ioannidis 2005; Moore 2010; Nuesch 2009).
-
A new outcome variable, catastrophic thinking, was included for all contrasts. This has emerged as a predictor of behavioural and emotional outcomes in the longer term, and is a widely (if not universally) used target of cognitive treatment.
-
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies: this has been expanded to include a fuller description, using the Cochrane Handbook recommendations.
-
Data extraction for 46 of the 60 trials in our penultimate selection (77%) was done independently by two authors, and the remainder by one.
Notes
This is an active area of development but at February 2016 there were no new potentially relevant studies likely to change the conclusions. Therefore, this review has now been stabilised following discussion with the authors and editors. The review will be re‐assessed for updating in 2021.
Author Stephen Morley sadly passed away in 2017. The review has been republished in July to reflect this.
