Cited by 729Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPain Management and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care on Back Pain and Functional Limitations in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, interviewer-blind, clinical trial in an integrated health care system in Washington State of 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 and randomly assigned to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or usual care (n = 113). INTERVENTIONS: CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR (training in mindfulness meditation and yoga) were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. Usual care included whatever care participants received. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement from baseline in functional limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range, 0-23) and in self-reported back pain bothersomeness (scale, 0-10) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: There were 342 randomized participants, the mean (SD) [range] age was 49.3 (12.3) [20-70] years, 224 (65.7%) were women, mean duration of back pain was 7.3 years (range, 3 months-50 years), 123 (53.7%) attended 6 or more of the 8 sessions, 294 (86.0%) completed the study at 26 weeks, and 290 (84.8%) completed the study at 52 weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for those who received MBSR (60.5%) and CBT (57.7%) than for usual care (44.1%) (overall P = .04; relative risk [RR] for MBSR vs usual care, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.77]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.18]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.69]). The percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was 43.6% in the MBSR group and 44.9% in the CBT group, vs 26.6% in the usual care group (overall P = .01; RR for MBSR vs usual care, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.15-2.34]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78-1.36]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]). Findings for MBSR persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with usual care, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. These findings suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2016.2323

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [27]Von Korff M Assessment of Chronic Pain in Epidemiological and Health Services Research Turk DC Melzack R Empirical Bases and New Directions in Handbook of Pain Assessment 3rd New York, NY Guilford Press 2011 455 473

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 728

Metadata

Authors
Cherkin, D. C., Sherman, K. J., Balderson, B. H., Cook, A. J., Anderson, M. L., Hawkes, R. J., Hansen, K. E., & Turner, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Cherkin, Daniel C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2016-03-22
Volume
315
Issue
12
Pages
1240
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2304035054
Cited by
729
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 80 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 31
FWCI
59.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT006226)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
mindfulness-based stress reduction, cognitive behavioral therapy, chronic low back pain, functional limitations, pain-related disability, mindfulness meditation, yoga, usual care, young and middle-aged adults, treatment effectiveness comparison, integrated health system, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain-related hopelessness, pain-related helplessness
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Stress, Physiological, Stress, Psychological, Washington, Yoga, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Low Back Pain, Sample Size, Young Adult, Intention to Treat Analysis, Mindfulness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review