Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain, a disabling and distressing condition, is common in adults. It is a global public health problem and economic burden on health and social care systems and on people with chronic pain. Psychological treatments aim to reduce pain, disability and distress. This review updates and extends its previous version, published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic pain in adults (age > 18 years) compared with active controls, or waiting list/treatment as usual (TAU). SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to 16 April 2020. We also examined reference lists and trial registries, and searched for studies citing retrieved trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of psychological treatments compared with active control or TAU of face-to-face therapies for adults with chronic pain. We excluded studies of headache or malignant disease, and those with fewer than 20 participants in any arm at treatment end. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more authors rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged quality of evidence (GRADE). We compared cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural therapy (BT), and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with active control or TAU at treatment end, and at six month to 12 month follow-up. We did not analyse the few trials of other psychological treatments. We assessed treatment effectiveness for pain intensity, disability, and distress. We extracted data on adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We added 41 studies (6255 participants) to 34 of the previous review's 42 studies, and now have 75 studies in total (9401 participants at treatment end). Most participants had fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, or mixed chronic pain. Most risk of bias domains were at high or unclear risk of bias, with selective reporting and treatment expectations mostly at unclear risk of bias. AEs were inadequately recorded and/or reported across studies. CBT The largest evidence base was for CBT (59 studies). CBT versus active control showed very small benefit at treatment end for pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.01; 3235 participants; 23 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04; 2543 participants; 19 studies; moderate-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.00; 3297 participants; 24 studies; moderate-quality evidence). We found small benefits for CBT over TAU at treatment end for pain (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.10; 2572 participants; 29 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.19; 2524 participants; 28 studies; low-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.24; 2559 participants; 27 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Effects were largely maintained at follow-up for CBT versus TAU, but not for CBT versus active control. Evidence quality for CBT outcomes ranged from moderate to low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for both comparisons. BT We analysed eight studies (647 participants). We found no evidence of difference between BT and active control at treatment end (pain SMD -0.67, 95% CI -2.54 to 1.20, very low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.54, very low-quality evidence; or distress SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.01, very low-quality evidence). At follow-up, effects were similar. We found no evidence of difference between BT and TAU (pain SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.17, low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19, moderate-quality evidence; distress SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.54, low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, we found one to three studies with no evidence of difference between BT and TAU. We rated evidence for all BT versus active control outcomes as very low quality; for BT versus TAU. Evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for BT versus active control. No studies of BT versus TAU reported AEs. ACT We analysed five studies (443 participants). There was no evidence of difference between ACT and active control for pain (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.11, very low-quality evidence), disability (SMD -1.51, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.03, very low-quality evidence) or distress (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.07, very low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, there was no evidence of effect for pain or distress (both very low-quality evidence), but two studies showed a large benefit for reducing disability (SMD -2.56, 95% CI -4.22 to -0.89, very low-quality evidence). Two studies compared ACT to TAU at treatment end. Results should be interpreted with caution. We found large benefits of ACT for pain (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.09, very low-quality evidence), but none for disability (SMD -1.39, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.41, very low-quality evidence), or distress (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -2.51 to 0.20, very low-quality evidence). Lack of data precluded analysis at follow-up. We rated evidence quality for AEs to be very low. We encourage caution when interpreting very low-quality evidence because the estimates are uncertain and could be easily overturned. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found sufficient evidence across a large evidence base (59 studies, over 5000 participants) that CBT has small or very small beneficial effects for reducing pain, disability, and distress in chronic pain, but we found insufficient evidence to assess AEs. Quality of evidence for CBT was mostly moderate, except for disability, which we rated as low quality. Further trials may provide more precise estimates of treatment effects, but to inform improvements, research should explore sources of variation in treatment effects. Evidence from trials of BT and ACT was of moderate to very low quality, so we are very uncertain about benefits or lack of benefits of these treatments for adults with chronic pain; other treatments were not analysed. These conclusions are similar to our 2012 review, apart from the separate analysis of ACT.

Psychological, social, and welfare interventions for torture survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Torture and other forms of ill treatment have been reported in at least 141 countries, exposing a global crisis. Survivors face multiple physical, psychological, and social difficulties. Psychological consequences for survivors are varied, and evidence on treatment is mixed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the benefits and harms of psychological, social, and welfare interventions for torture survivors. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We updated a 2014 review with published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for adult survivors of torture comparing any psychological, social, or welfare intervention against treatment as usual or active control from 1 January 2014 through 22 June 2019. Primary outcome was post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms or caseness, and secondary outcomes were depression symptoms, functioning, quality of life, and adverse effects, after treatment and at follow-up of at least 3 months. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios were estimated using meta-analysis with random effects. The Cochrane tool was used to derive risk of bias. Fifteen RCTs were included, with data from 1,373 participants (589 females and 784 males) in 10 countries (7 trials in Europe, 5 in Asia, and 3 in Africa). No trials of social or welfare interventions were found. Compared to mostly inactive (waiting list) controls, psychological interventions reduced PTSD symptoms by the end of treatment (SMD -0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.52 to -0.09, p = 0.005), but PTSD symptoms at follow-up were not significantly reduced (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.06, p = 0.09). No significant improvement was found for PTSD caseness at the end of treatment, and there was possible worsening at follow-up from one study (n = 28). Interventions showed no benefits for depression symptoms at end of treatment (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.03, p = 0.09) or follow-up (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.24, p = 0.34). A significant improvement in functioning for psychological interventions compared to control was found at end of treatment (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.18, p = 0.0002) but not at follow-up from only one study. No significant improvement emerged for quality of life at end of treatment (SMD 0.38, 95% CI -0.28 to 1.05, p = 0.26) with no data available at follow-up. The main study limitations were the difficulty in this field of being certain of capturing all eligible studies, the lack of modelling of maintenance of treatment gains, and the low precision of most SMDs making findings liable to change with the addition of further studies as they are published. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show evidence that psychological interventions improve PTSD symptoms and functioning at the end of treatment, but it is unknown whether this is maintained at follow-up, with a possible worsening of PTSD caseness at follow-up from one study. Further interventions in this population should address broader psychological needs beyond PTSD while taking into account the effect of multiple daily stressors. Additional studies, including social and welfare interventions, will improve precision of estimates of effect, particularly over the longer term.

Psychological therapies for the prevention of migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common neurological problem associated with the highest burden amongst neurological conditions in terms of years lived with disability. Medications can be used as prophylaxis or rescue medicines, but are costly and not always effective. A range of psychological interventions have been developed to manage migraine. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of psychological therapies for the prevention of migraine in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from their inception until July 2018, and trials registries in the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand for randomised controlled trials of any psychological intervention for adults with migraine. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of a psychological therapy for people with chronic or episodic migraine, with or without aura. Interventions could be compared to another active treatment (psychological or medical), an attention-placebo (e.g. supportive counselling) or other placebo, routine care, or waiting-list control. We excluded studies where fewer than 15 participants completed each arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted study characteristics and outcome data at post-treatment and the longest available follow-up. We analysed intervention versus control comparisons for the primary outcome of migraine frequency. We measured migraine frequency using days with migraines or number of migraine attacks measured in the four weeks after treatment. In addition, we analysed the following secondary outcomes: responder rate (the proportion of participants with a 50% reduction in migraine frequency between the four weeks prior to and the four weeks after treatment); migraine intensity; migraine duration; migraine medication usage; mood; quality of life; migraine-related disability; and proportion of participants reporting adverse events during the treatment. We included these variables, where available, at follow-up, the timing of which varied between the studies. We used the GRADE approach to judge the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We found 21 RCTs including 2482 participants with migraine, and we extracted meta-analytic data from 14 of these studies. The majority of studies recruited participants through advertisements, included participants with migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria and those with and without aura. Most intervention arms were a form of behavioural or cognitive-behavioural therapy. The majority of comparator arms were no treatment, routine care or waiting list. Interventions varied from one 20-minute session to 14 hours of intervention. No study had unequivocally low risk of bias; all had at least one domain at high risk of bias, and 20 had two to five domains at high risk. Reporting of randomisation procedures and allocation concealment were at high or unclear risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of evidence for outcomes to very low, due to very serious limitations in study quality and imprecision. Reporting in trials was poor; we found no preregistrations stipulating the outcomes, or demonstrating equivalent expectations between groups. Few studies reported our outcomes of interest, most only reported outcomes post treatment; follow-up data were sparse.Post-treatment effectsWe found no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions for migraine frequency in number of migraines or days with migraine (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.13; 4 studies, 681 participants; very low-quality evidence).The responder rate (proportion of participants with migraine frequency reduction of more than 50%) was greater for those who received a psychological intervention compared to control: 101/186 participants (54%) with psychological therapy; 37/152 participants (24%) with control (risk ratio (RR) 2.21, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.98; 4 studies, 338 participants; very low-quality evidence). We found no effect of psychological therapies on migraine intensity (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.02; 4 studies, 685 participants). There were no data for migraine duration (hours of migraine per day). There was no effect on migraine medication usage (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.24; 2 studies, 483 participants), mood (mean difference (MD) 0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.49; 4 studies, 432 participants), quality of life (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.26; 4 studies, 565 participants), or migraine-related disability (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.00; 6 studies, 952 participants). The proportion of participants reporting adverse events did not differ between those receiving psychological treatment (9/107; 8%) and control (30/101; 30%) (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.85; 2 studies, 208 participants). Only two studies reported adverse events and so we were unable to draw any conclusions.We rated evidence from all studies as very low quality.Follow-upOnly four studies reported any follow-up data. Follow-ups ranged from four months following intervention to 11 months following intervention. There was no evidence of an effect on any outcomes at follow-up (very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified 21 studies of psychological interventions for the management of migraine. We did not find evidence that psychological interventions affected migraine frequency, a result based on four studies of primarily brief treatments. Those who received psychological interventions were twice as likely to be classified as responders in the short term, but this was based on very low-quality evidence and there was no evidence of an effect of psychological intervention compared to control at follow-up. There was no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions on medication usage, mood, migraine-related disability or quality of life. There was no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions on migraine frequency in the short-term or long-term. In terms of adverse events, we were unable to draw conclusions as there was insufficient evidence. High and unclear risk of bias in study design and reporting, small numbers of participants, performance and detection bias meant that we rated all evidence as very low quality. Therefore, we conclude that there is an absence of high-quality evidence to determine whether psychological interventions are effective in managing migraine in adults and we are uncertain whether there is any difference between psychological therapies and controls.

Images as catalysts for meaning-making in medical pain encounters: a multidisciplinary analysis.

The challenge for those treating or witnessing pain is to find a way of crossing the chasm of meaning between them and the person living with pain. This paper proposes that images can strengthen agency in the person with pain, particularly but not only in the clinical setting, and can create a shared space within which to negotiate meaning. It draws on multidisciplinary analyses of unique material resulting from two fine art/medical collaborations in London, UK, in which the invisible experience of pain was made visible in the form of co-created photographic images, which were then made available to other patients as a resource to use in specialist consultations. In parallel with the pain encounters it describes, the paper weaves together the insights of specialists from a range of disciplines whose methodologies and priorities sometimes conflict and sometimes intersect to make sense of each other's findings. A short section of video footage where images were used in a pain consultation is examined in fine detail from the perspective of each discipline. The analysis shows how the images function as 'transactional objects' and how their use coincides with an increase in the amount of talk and emotional disclosure on the part of the patient and greater non-verbal affiliative behaviour on the part of the doctor. These findings are interpreted from the different disciplinary perspectives, to build a complex picture of the multifaceted, contradictory and paradoxical nature of pain experience, the drive to communicate it and the potential role of visual images in clinical settings.

Interventions for treating persistent pain in survivors of torture.

BACKGROUND: Persistent (chronic) pain is a frequent complaint in survivors of torture, particularly but not exclusively pain in the musculoskeletal system. Torture survivors may have no access to health care; where they do, they may not be recognised when they present, and the care available often falls short of their needs. There is a tendency in state and non-governmental organisations' services to focus on mental health, with poor understanding of persistent pain, while survivors may have many other legal, welfare, and social problems that take precedence over health care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of interventions for treating persistent pain and associated problems in survivors of torture. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS, and PsycINFO, from database inception to 1 February 2017. We also searched trials registers and grey literature databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of interventions of any type (medical, physical, psychological) compared with any alternative intervention or no intervention, and with a pain outcome. Studies needed to have at least 10 participants in each arm for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 3578 titles in total after deduplication; we selected 24 full papers to assess for eligibility. We requested data from two completed trials without published results.We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) and effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Three small published studies (88 participants) met the inclusion criteria, but one had been retracted from publication because of ethical problems concerned with confidentiality and financial irregularities. Since these did not affect the data, the study was retained in this review. Despite the search including any intervention, only two types were represented in the eligible studies: two trials used cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with biofeedback versus waiting list on unspecified persistent pain (58 participants completed treatment), and one examined the effect of complex manual therapy versus self-treatment on low back pain (30 participants completed treatment). Excluded studies were largely either not RCTs or did not report pain as an outcome.There was no difference for the outcome of pain relief at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 58 participants; SMD -0.05, 95% CI -1.23 to 1.12) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.23) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial also reported no difference between complex manual therapy and self-treatment (30 participants; SMD -0.48, 95% CI -9.95 to 0.35) (very low quality evidence). Two studies reported dropouts, one with partial information on reasons; none of the studies reported adverse effects.There was no information from any study on the outcomes of use of analgesics or quality of life.Reduction in disability showed no difference at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 57 participants; SMD -0.39, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.39) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD 0, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.74) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial reported superiority of complex manual therapy over self-treatment for reducing disability (30 participants; SMD -1.10, 95% CI - 1.88 to -0.33) (very low quality evidence).Reduction in distress showed no difference at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 58 participants; SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.60) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.99) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial reported superiority of complex manual therapy over self-treatment for reducing distress (30 participants; SMD -1.26, 95% CI - 2.06 to -0.47) (very low quality evidence).The risk of bias was considered high given the small number of trials, small size of trials, and the likelihood that each was underpowered for the comparisons it reported. We primarily downgraded the quality of the evidence due to small numbers in trials, lack of intention-to-treat analyses, high unaccounted dropout, lack of detail on study methods, and CIs around effect sizes that included no effect, benefit, and harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any intervention for persistent pain in survivors of torture.

Treatment of persistent pain from torture: review and commentary.

Torture and the conditions under which it is inflicted often leave persistent painful disorders. Because there may be no lasting signs, persistent pain is often misconceived as a somatic representation of psychological distress, also common after torture. This serious failure to understand the nature of persistent pain means that pain is largely overlooked and untreated in torture survivors. We carried out a systematic review on treatments for pain from torture, but found few studies and little use of current understanding and evidence. We discuss this in the context of treating pain associated with psychological distress and of the broader problems faced by the refugee and torture survivor that may take priority over pain. We propose clinical and research implications for this neglected field.

Psychological treatment for vaginal pain: does etiology matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Classification of vaginal pain within medical or psychiatric diagnostic systems draws mainly on the presumed presence or absence (respectively) of underlying medical etiology. A focus on the experience of pain, rather than etiology, emphasizes common ground in the aims of treatment to improve pain and sexual, emotional, and cognitive experience. Thus, exploring how vaginal pain conditions with varying etiology respond to psychological treatment could cast light on the extent to which they are the same or distinct. AIM: To examine the combined and relative efficacy of psychological treatments for vaginal pain conditions. METHODS: A systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL was undertaken. Eleven randomized controlled trials were entered into a meta-analysis, and standardized mean differences and odds ratios were calculated. Effect sizes for individual psychological trial arms were also calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures were pain and sexual function. RESULTS: Equivalent effects were found for psychological and medical treatments. Effect sizes for psychological treatment arms were comparable across vaginal pain conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness was equivalent regardless of presumed medical or psychiatric etiology, indicating that presumed etiology may not be helpful in selecting treatment. Research recommendations and clinical implications are discussed.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain is thought to arise from damage to the somatosensory nervous system. Its prevalence is increasing in line with many chronic disorders such as diabetes. All treatments have limited effectiveness. Given the evidence regarding psychological treatment for distress and disability in people with various chronic pain conditions, we were interested to investigate whether psychological treatments have any effects for those with chronic neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological treatments on pain experience, disability, mood, and health-care use in adults with chronic neuropathic pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, from database inception to March 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Full publications of RCTs on psychological interventions for neuropathic pain. Trials had to have lasted at least three months, had at least 20 participants in each arm at the end of treatment, and compared a psychological intervention with any active or inactive intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Two small studies (enrolling a total of 105 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One was a standard cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) programme for 61 people with pain from spinal cord injury, followed up for three months, and compared with a waiting list. The other was weekly group psychotherapy for 44 people with burning mouth syndrome, compared with a daily placebo tablet. The overall risk of bias was high in both trials.The CBT study assessed participants for pain, disability, mood, and quality of life, with improvement in treatment and control groups. However, there was no more improvement in the treatment group than in the control for any outcome, either post-treatment or at follow-up. The group psychotherapy study only assessed pain, classifying participants by pain severity. There is a lack of evidence on the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for people with neuropathic pain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence of the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic neuropathic pain. The two available studies show no benefit of treatment over either waiting list or placebo control groups.

Caregiver experiences of supporting adults with intellectual disabilities in pain.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers have an intimate knowledge of the individuals they care for and are therefore an important source of information on pain experiences. They are often relied upon to recognize pain-related behaviours and report them, but little is known as to how they experience their role. METHODS: Information was collected from 11 caregivers using semi-structured interviews about their experiences of caring for adults with intellectual disabilities who were suspected or definitely in pain. Transcripts were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS: Six superordinate themes were identified from participants' experiences: suffering in silence; searching for meaning to explain the complaint; knowledge and skills needed to recognize and manage pain; perceptions of the pain experience; acting to try and reduce pain; and the emotional impact of pain. CONCLUSIONS: There seems an art to detect pain using existing skills and knowledge of the individual's ways of expressing pain. Despite best efforts, recognizing and treating pain was experienced as complex and ambiguous. Some caregivers described a negative emotional impact and dissatisfaction with the management of pain by health care services.

Psychological, social and welfare interventions for psychological health and well-being of torture survivors.

BACKGROUND: Torture is widespread, with potentially broad and long-lasting impact across physical, psychological, social and other areas of life. Its complex and diverse effects interact with ethnicity, gender, and refugee experience. Health and welfare agencies offer varied rehabilitation services, from conventional mental health treatment to eclectic or needs-based interventions. This review is needed because relatively little outcome research has been done in this field, and no previous systematic review has been conducted. Resources are scarce, and the challenges of providing services can be considerable. OBJECTIVES: To assess beneficial and adverse effects of psychological, social and welfare interventions for torture survivors, and to compare these effects with those reported by active and inactive controls. SEARCH METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified through a search of PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Specialised Register (CCDANCTR), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), the Open System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenSIGLE), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and Published International Literature On Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) all years to 11 April 2013; searches of Cochrane resources, international trial registries and the main biomedical databases were updated on 20 June 2014. We also searched the Online Library of Dignity (Danish Institute against Torture), reference lists of reviews and included studies and the most frequently cited journals, up to April 2013 but not repeated for 2014. Investigators were contacted to provide updates or details as necessary. SELECTION CRITERIA: Full publications of RCTs or quasi-RCTs of psychological, social or welfare interventions for survivors of torture against any active or inactive comparison condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We included all major sources of grey literature in our search and used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration for collecting data, evaluating risk of bias and using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included in this review. All were of psychological interventions; none provided social or welfare interventions. The nine trials provided data for 507 adults; none involved children or adolescents. Eight of the nine studies described individual treatment, and one discussed group treatment. Six trials were conducted in Europe, and three in different African countries. Most people were refugees in their thirties and forties; most met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the outset. Four trials used narrative exposure therapy (NET), one cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and the other four used mixed methods for trauma symptoms, one of which included reconciliation methods. Five interventions were compared with active controls, such as psychoeducation; four used treatment as usual or waiting list/no treatment; we analysed all control conditions together. Duration of therapy varied from one hour to longer than 20 hours with a median of around 12 to 15 hours. All trials reported effects on distress and on PTSD, and two reported on quality of life. Five studies followed up participants for at least six months.No immediate benefits of psychological therapy were noted in comparison with controls in terms of our primary outcome of distress (usually depression), nor for PTSD symptoms, PTSD caseness, or quality of life. At six-month follow-up, three NET and one CBT study (86 participants) showed moderate effect sizes for intervention over control in reduction of distress (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.07 to -0.19) and of PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.52, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.07). However, the quality of evidence was very low, and risk of bias resulted from researcher/therapist allegiance to treatment methods, effects of uncertain asylum status of some people and real-time non-standardised translation of assessment measures. No measures of adverse events were described, nor of participation, social functioning, quantity of social or family relationships, proxy measures by third parties or satisfaction with treatment. Too few studies were identified for review authors to attempt sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-quality evidence suggests no differences between psychological therapies and controls in terms of immediate effects on post-traumatic symptoms, distress or quality of life; however, NET and CBT were found to confer moderate benefits in reducing distress and PTSD symptoms over the medium term (six months after treatment). Evidence was of very low quality, mainly because non-standardised assessment methods using interpreters were applied, and sample sizes were very small. Most eligible trials also revealed medium to high risk of bias. Further, attention to the cultural appropriateness of interventions or to their psychometric qualities was inadequate, and assessment measures used were unsuitable. As such, these findings should be interpreted with caution.No data were available on whether symptom reduction enabled improvements in quality of life, participation in community life, or in social and family relationships in the medium term. Details of adverse events and treatment satisfaction were not available immediately after treatment nor in the medium term. Future research should aim to address these gaps in the evidence and should include larger sample sizes when possible. Problems of torture survivors need to be defined far more broadly than by PTSD symptoms, and recognition given to the contextual influences of being a torture survivor, including as an asylum seeker or refugee, on psychological and social health.

Non-surgical interventions for the management of chronic pelvic pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain is a common and debilitating condition; its aetiology is multifactorial, involving social, psychological and biological factors. The management of chronic pelvic pain is challenging, as despite interventions involving surgery, many women remain in pain without a firm gynaecological diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of non-surgical interventions for women with chronic pelvic pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register. We also searched (from inception to 5 February 2014) AMED, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS. We handsearched sources such as citation lists, trial registers and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on non-surgical management of chronic pelvic pain were eligible for inclusion. We included studies of women with a diagnosis of pelvic congestion syndrome or adhesions but excluded those with pain known to be caused by endometriosis, primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain), active chronic pelvic inflammatory disease or irritable bowel syndrome. We considered studies of any non-surgical intervention, including lifestyle, physical, medical and psychological treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two review authors. Meta-analysis was performed using the Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome measure was pain relief, and secondary outcome measures were psychological outcomes, quality of life, requirement for analgesia and adverse effects. The quality of the evidence was assessed by using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs were identified that involved non-surgical management of chronic pelvic pain: 13 trials were included in the review, and eight were excluded. The studies included a total of 750 women-406 women in the intervention groups and 344 in the control groups. Included studies had high attrition rates, and investigators often did not blind adequately or did not clearly describe randomisation procedures. Medical treatment versus placebo Progestogen (medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)) was more effective than placebo at the end of treatment in terms of the number of women achieving a greater than 50% reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score immediately after treatment (Peto OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.70 to 5.31, two studies, n = 204, I(2) = 22%, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence of benefit was maintained up to nine months after treatment (Peto OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.71, two studies, n = 204, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Women treated with progestogen reported more adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, bloatedness) than those given placebo (high-quality evidence). The estimated effect of lofexidine on pain outcomes when compared with placebo was compatible with benefit and harm (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.61, one study, 39 women, low-quality evidence). Women in the lofexidine group reported more adverse effects (including drowsiness and dry mouth) than women given placebo (moderate-quality evidence). Head-to-head comparisons of medical treatments Head-to-head comparisons showed that women taking goserelin had greater improvement in pelvic pain score (MD 3, 95% CI 2.08 to 3.92, one study, n = 47, moderate-quality evidence) at one year than those taking progestogen. Women taking gabapentin had a lower VAS pain score than those taking amytriptyline (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.06 to -0.94, n = 40, low-quality evidence). Study authors reported that no statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of adverse effects among women taking gabapentin compared with women given amytriptyline. The study comparing goserelin versus progestogen did not report on adverse effects. Psychological treatment Women who underwent reassurance ultrasound scans and received counselling were more likely to report improved pain than those treated with a standard 'wait and see' policy (Peto OR 6.77, 95% CI 2.83 to 16.19, n = 90, low-quality evidence). Significantly more women who had writing therapy as a disclosure reported improvement in pain than those in the non-disclosure group (Peto OR 4.47, 95% CI 1.41 to 14.13, n = 48, very low-quality evidence). No difference between groups in pain outcomes was noted when other psychological therapies were compared with standard care or placebo (quality of evidence ranged from very low to low). Studies did not report on adverse effects. Complementary therapy Distension of painful pelvic structures was more effective for pain when compared with counselling (MD 35.8, 95% CI 23.08 to 48.52 on a zero to 100 scale, one study, n = 48, moderate-quality evidence). No difference in pain levels was observed when magnetic therapy was compared with use of a control magnet (very low-quality evidence). Studies did not report on adverse effects.The results of studies examining psychological and complementary therapies could not be combined to yield meaningful results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of moderate quality supports progestogen as an option for chronic pelvic pain, with efficacy reported during treatment. In practice, this option may be most acceptable among women unconcerned about progestogenic adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, bloatedness-the most common adverse effects). Although some evidence suggests possible benefit of goserelin when compared with progestogen, gabapentin as compared with amytriptyline, ultrasound versus 'wait and see' and writing therapy versus non-disclosure, the quality of evidence is generally low, and evidence is drawn from single studies.Given the prevalence and healthcare costs associated with chronic pelvic pain in women, RCTs of other medical, lifestyle and psychological interventions are urgently required.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 1, 2003, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012. Chronic pain affects many children, who report severe pain, disability, and distressed mood. Psychological therapies are emerging as effective interventions to treat children with chronic or recurrent pain. This update focuses specifically on psychological therapies delivered face-to-face, adds new randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and additional data from previously included trials. OBJECTIVES: There were three objectives to this review. First, to determine the effectiveness on clinical outcomes of pain severity, disability, depression, and anxiety of psychological therapy delivered face-to-face for chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents compared with active treatment, waiting-list, or standard medical care. Second, to evaluate the impact of psychological therapies on depression and anxiety, which were previously combined as 'mood'. Third, we assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and the quality of outcomes using the GRADE criteria. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were undertaken of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. We searched for further RCTs in the references of all identified studies, meta-analyses, and reviews. Trial registry databases were also searched. The date of most recent search was January 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs with at least 10 participants in each arm post-treatment comparing psychological therapies with active treatment, standard medical care, or waiting-list control for children or adolescents with episodic, recurrent or persistent pain were eligible for inclusion. Only trials conducted in person (face-to-face) were considered. Studies that delivered treatment remotely were excluded from this update. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All included studies were analysed and the quality of outcomes were assessed. All treatments were combined into one class, psychological treatments. Pain conditions were split into headache and non-headache. Both conditions were assessed on four outcomes: pain, disability, depression, and anxiety. Data were extracted at two time points; post-treatment (immediately or the earliest data available following end of treatment) and at follow-up (between three and 12 months post-treatment). MAIN RESULTS: Seven papers were identified in the updated search. Of these papers, five presented new trials and two presented follow-up data for previously included trials. Five studies that were previously included in this review were excluded as therapy was delivered remotely. The review thus included a total of 37 studies. The total number of participants completing treatments was 2111. Twenty studies addressed treatments for headache (including migraine); nine for abdominal pain; two for mixed pain conditions including headache pain, two for fibromyalgia, two for recurrent abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome, and two for pain associated with sickle cell disease.Analyses revealed psychological therapies to be beneficial for children with chronic pain on seven outcomes. For headache pain, psychological therapies reduced pain post-treatment and at follow-up respectively (risk ratio (RR) 2.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97 to 3.09, z = 7.87, p < 0.01, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 2.94; RR 2.89, 95% CI 1.03 to 8.07, z = 2.02, p < 0.05, NNTB = 3.67). Psychological therapies also had a small beneficial effect at reducing disability in headache conditions post-treatment and at follow-up respectively (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.24, z = 3.90, p < 0.01; SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.13, z = 2.72, p < 0.01). No beneficial effect was found on depression post-treatment (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.14, z = 1.11, p > 0.05). At follow-up, only one study was eligible, therefore no analysis was possible and no conclusions can be drawn. Analyses revealed a small beneficial effect for anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.04, z = 2.25, p < 0.05). However, this was not maintained at follow-up (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.45; z = 0.75, p > 0.05).Analyses revealed two beneficial effects of psychological treatment for children with non-headache pain. Pain was found to improve post-treatment (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.27, z = 3.74, p < 0.01), but not at follow-up (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19, z = 0.73, p > 0.05). Psychological therapies also had a beneficial effect for disability post-treatment (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.19, z = 3.40, p < 0.01), but this was not maintained at follow-up (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.02, z = 1.87, p > 0.05). No effect was found for depression or anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.17, z = 0.54, p > 0.05; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.07, z = 1.33, p > 0.05) or at follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.28, z = 0.53, p > 0.05; SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.33, z = 0.32, p > 0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Psychological treatments delivered face-to-face are effective in reducing pain intensity and disability for children and adolescents (<18 years) with headache, and therapeutic gains appear to be maintained, although this should be treated with caution for the disability outcome as only two studies could be included in the follow-up analysis. Psychological therapies are also beneficial at reducing anxiety post-treatment for headache. For non-headache conditions, psychological treatments were found to be beneficial for pain and disability post-treatment but these effects were not maintained at follow-up. There is limited evidence available to estimate the effects of psychological therapies on depression and anxiety for children and adolescents with headache and non-headache pain. The conclusions of this update replicate and add to those of the previous review which found that psychological therapies were effective in reducing pain intensity for children with headache and non-headache pain conditions, and these effects were maintained at follow-up for children with headache conditions.

Making sense of pain in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD): A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, gastrointestinal tract condition, in which pain is one of the most widespread and debilitating symptoms, yet research about how individuals make sense of their IBD pain is lacking. The current study aimed to explore how individuals with IBD understand their pain. METHODS: Twenty participants, recruited via the Crohn's & Colitis UK charity, were interviewed about their understanding of their IBD pain using the Grid Elaboration Method that elicits free associations on which it invites elaboration. Thematic analysis was used to organise transcribed verbatim data. RESULTS: Three related themes - making sense of my pain, navigating my care and support and it takes its toll - comprising seven sub-themes, illustrated the ways in which participants made sense of pain experientially, multi-dimensionally, and in the broader context of IBD and its symptoms. The psychological impact of pain was evident across all interviews. CONCLUSIONS: The findings are consistent with other research in IBD pain, demonstrating the importance of pain in IBD. Sense-making underpins both emotional and practical responses to pain and ideally is constructed as an integral part of clinical care of IBD.

Pain and other complications of pelvic mesh: a systematic review of qualitative studies and thematic synthesis of women's accounts.

OBJECTIVES: Synthesis of the experience of women with pain from pelvic or vaginal mesh or its removal, to identify pain-related problems and to formulate psychological aspects of pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and thematic analysis of qualitative studies of pain from pelvic or vaginal mesh, or mesh removal, in women over 18 years, using individual interviews, focus groups, free text, or written or oral contributions to formal enquiries. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and PsycINFO, from inception to 26 April 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Qualitative studies of pain and other symptoms from pelvic or vaginal mesh or its removal; adults; no language restriction. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Line-by-line coding of participant quotations and study author statements by one author to provide codes that were applied to half the studies by another author and differences resolved by discussion. Codes were grouped into subthemes and themes by both authors, then scrutinised and discussed by a focus group of mesh-injured women for omissions, emphasis and coherence. Studies were appraised using an amalgamation of the CASP and COREQ tools. RESULTS: 2292 search results produced 9 eligible studies, with 7-752 participants, a total of around 2000. Four recruited patients, four totally or partially from mesh advocacy groups, and two were national enquiries (UK and Australia). Four major themes were as follows: broken body, broken mind; distrust of doctors and the medical industry; broken life and keeping going-a changed future. Psychological content mainly concerned the loss of trust in medical care, leaving women unsupported in facing an uncertain future. Mesh-injured women strongly endorsed the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Pain and other problems associated with pelvic mesh are profound and far-reaching for women affected. Worse, they feel subject to continued gaslighting, including denial of their mesh-related problems and dismissal of their concerns about continued mesh insertion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022330527.

Guarding and flow in the movements of people with chronic pain: A qualitative study of physiotherapists' observations.

BACKGROUND: Among the adaptations of movement consistently associated with disability in chronic pain, guarding is common. Based on previous work, we sought to understand better the constituents of guarding; we also used the concept of flow to explore the description of un/naturalness that emerged from physiotherapists' descriptions of movement in chronic pain. The aim was to inform the design of technical systems to support people with chronic pain in everyday activities. METHODS: Sixteen physiotherapists, experts in chronic pain, were interviewed while repeatedly watching short video clips of people with chronic low back pain doing simple movements; physiotherapists described the movements, particularly in relation to guarding and flow. The transcribed interviews were analysed thematically to elaborate these constructs. RESULTS: Moderate agreement emerged on the extent of guarding in the videos, with good agreement that guarding conveyed caution about movement, distinct from biomechanical variables of stiffness or slow speed. Physiotherapists' comments on flow showed slightly better agreement, and described the overall movement in terms of restriction (where there was no flow or only some flow), of tempo of the entire movement, and as naturalness (distinguished from normality of movement). CONCLUSIONS: These qualities of movement may be useful in designing technical systems to support self-management of chronic pain. SIGNIFICANCE: Drawing on the descriptions of movements of people with chronic low back pain provided by expert physiotherapists to standard stimuli, two key concepts were elaborated. Guarding was distinguished from stiffness (a physical limitation) or slowness as motivated by fear or worry about movement. Flow served to describe harmonious and continuous movement, even when adapted around restrictions of pain. Movement behaviours associated with pain are better understood in terms of their particular function than aggregated without reference to function.

Mental health and conflict: a pilot of an online eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) intervention for forcibly displaced Syrian women.

Background: The Syrian conflict has been ongoing since 2011. Practical and scalable solutions are urgently needed to meet an increase in need for specialised psychological support for post-traumatic stress disorder given limited availability of clinicians. Training forcibly displaced Syrians with a mental health background to remotely deliver specialised interventions increases the availability of evidence based psychological support. Little is known about the effectiveness of online therapy for forcibly displaced Syrian women provided by forcibly displaced Syrian women therapists. Purpose: To pilot an evidence-based trauma therapy, Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR), carried out online by trained forcibly displaced Syrian women therapists for forcibly displaced Syrian women who require treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Methods: 83 forcibly displaced Syrian women, living in Türkiye or inside Syria, with diagnosable PTSD, were offered up to 12 sessions of online EMDR over a period of 3 months. This was delivered by forcibly displaced Syrian women therapists who were trained in EMDR. Data were gathered, using Arabic versions, on PTSD symptoms using the Impact of Events Scale Revised, depression symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and anxiety symptoms using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 at baseline, mid-point, and end of therapy. Results: PTSD scores, depression scores and anxiety scores all significantly reduced over the course of treatment, with lower scores at midpoint than baseline and lower scores at end of treatment than at midpoint. Only one participant (1%) exceeded the cutoff point for PTSD, and 13 (16%) exceeded the cutoff points for anxiety and depression at the end of treatment. Conclusion: In this pilot study up to 12 sessions of online EMDR were associated with reductions in PTSD, anxiety and depression symptoms in Syrian women affected by the Syrian conflict. The training of forcibly displaced Syrian mental health professionals to deliver online therapy is a relatively low cost, scalable, sustainable solution to ensure that those who are affected by the conflict can access specialised support. Further research is needed using a control group to confirm that the observed effects are due to EMDR treatment, as is research with post-treatment follow-up to ascertain that benefits are maintained.

Investigating the veracity of a sample of divergent published trial data in spinal pain.

ABSTRACT: Evidence-based medicine is replete with studies assessing quality and bias, but few evaluating research integrity or trustworthiness. A recent Cochrane review of psychological interventions for chronic pain identified trials with a shared lead author with highly divergent results. We sought to systematically identify all similar trials from this author to explore their risk of bias, governance procedures, and trustworthiness. We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PEDro from 2010 to December 22, 2021 for trials. We contacted the authors requesting details of trial registration, ethical approval, protocol, and access to the trial data for verification. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth group's Trustworthiness Screening Tool to guide systematic exploration of trustworthiness. Ten trials were included: 9 compared cognitive behavioural therapy and physical exercise to usual care, exercise alone, or physiotherapy and 1 compared 2 brief cognitive behavioural therapy programmes. Eight trials reported results divergent from the evidence base. Assessment of risk of bias and participant characteristics identified no substantial concerns. Responses from the lead author did not satisfactorily explain this divergence. Trustworthiness screening identified concerns about research governance, data plausibility at baseline, the results, and apparent data duplication. We discuss the findings within the context of methods for establishing the trustworthiness of research findings generally. Important concerns regarding the trustworthiness of these trials reduce our confidence in them. They should probably not be used to inform the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, in clinical training, policy documents, or any relevant instruction regarding adult chronic pain management.

Developing the evidence and associated service models to support older adults living with frailty to manage their pain and to reduce its impact on their lives: protocol for a mixed-method, co-design study (The POPPY Study).

INTRODUCTION: The Pain in Older People with Frailty Study is a mixed-method, co-design study, which aims to develop the content, implementation strategies, service and professional guidance to support older adults with frailty to manage their pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study has four phases: Phase 1, research evidence and information synthesis from randomised controlled trials of multicomponent pain management programmes and psychological therapies for community-dwelling older adults. Phase 2, qualitative interviews with 30 community-dwelling older adults (≥75 years) living with frailty and persistent pain, including dyadic interviews with a spouse or unpaid carer. Phase 3, qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) working within various pain service types; 5-8 HCPs per service and up to 12 services including primary care, secondary care, tertiary centres and services with voluntary sector input. Phase 4, co-design workshops with older adults, HCPs and commissioners. Inclusion criteria (Phase 2): community-dwelling older adults (≥75 years) living with frailty and persistent pain. Exclusion criteria (Phase 2): care home residents, a dementia or cancer diagnosis. Cancer survivors, ≥5 years cancer free, and not undergoing active cancer treatment can participate. Analysis for Phase 1 will use narrative synthesis, Phase 2 will use grounded theory analysis and Phase 3 will use thematic analysis. Oversight is provided from a patient and public involvement group and an independent steering committee. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by Leeds-East Research Ethics Committee on 28 April 2022 (22/YH/0080). Consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate (Phases 2-4) and has capacity. Findings will be disseminated at conferences, in newsletters and journals and to local authorities and charities.

Information about male chronic pelvic and urogenital pain on the Internet: an evaluation of Internet resources.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe and evaluate the Internet resources available to patients searching for information about chronic urogenital/pelvic pain. DESIGN: As far as possible, we applied systematic review methods to search, retrieve, sort, and critique Websites, using common search engines and terms in the English language. Evaluation from a patient viewpoint focused particularly on the quality of explanations for chronic urogenital/pelvic pain in men, and on the psychological content of the Websites. RESULTS: While the 23 Websites reviewed were generally accessible and open, authorial attribution was largely missing and the nomenclature were inconsistent and confusing. Explanations of chronic pain were diverse and often inaccurate or only partially accurate; none represented current neurophysiologic models of chronic pain. Eight described psychological aspects of pain, five in a simple way and three with more complexity, but only one approximated a contemporary biopsychosocial model. CONCLUSIONS: As in other areas of chronic pain, there is a wealth of information available online, but much is of poor quality, and taken together, is likely to confuse more than enlighten patients attempting to understand male urogenital/pelvic pain symptoms or supplement information from health care professionals.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults.

BACKGROUND: Psychological treatments are designed to treat pain, distress and disability, and are in common practice. This review updates and extends the 2009 version of this systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies for chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults, compared with treatment as usual, waiting list control, or placebo control, for pain, disability, mood and catastrophic thinking. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapy by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Psychlit from the beginning of each abstracting service until September 2011. We identified additional studies from the reference lists of retrieved papers and from discussion with investigators. SELECTION CRITERIA: Full publications of RCTs of psychological treatments compared with an active treatment, waiting list or treatment as usual. We excluded studies if the pain was primarily headache, or was associated with a malignant disease. We also excluded studies if the number of patients in any treatment arm was less than 20. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Forty-two studies met our criteria and 35 (4788 participants) provided data. Two authors rated all studies. We coded risk of bias as well as both the quality of the treatments and the methods using a scale designed for the purpose. We compared two main classes of treatment (cognitive behavioural therapy(CBT) and behaviour therapy) with two control conditions (treatment as usual; active control) at two assessment points (immediately following treatment and six months or more following treatment), giving eight comparisons. For each comparison, we assessed treatment effectiveness on four outcomes: pain, disability, mood and catastrophic thinking, giving a total of 32 possible analyses, of which there were data for 25. MAIN RESULTS: Overall there is an absence of evidence for behaviour therapy, except a small improvement in mood immediately following treatment when compared with an active control. CBT has small positive effects on disability and catastrophising, but not on pain or mood, when compared with active controls. CBT has small to moderate effects on pain, disability, mood and catastrophising immediately post-treatment when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list, but all except a small effect on mood had disappeared at follow-up. At present there are insufficient data on the quality or content of treatment to investigate their influence on outcome. The quality of the trial design has improved over time but the quality of treatments has not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of CBT emerged almost entirely from comparisons with treatment as usual/waiting list, not with active controls. CBT but not behaviour therapy has weak effects in improving pain, but only immediately post-treatment and when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list. CBT but not behaviour therapy has small effects on disability associated with chronic pain, with some maintenance at six months. CBT is effective in altering mood and catastrophising outcomes, when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list, with some evidence that this is maintained at six months. Behaviour therapy has no effects on mood, but showed an effect on catastrophising immediately post-treatment. CBT is a useful approach to the management of chronic pain. There is no need for more general RCTs reporting group means: rather, different types of studies and analyses are needed to identify which components of CBT work for which type of patient on which outcome/s, and to try to understand why.