Cited by 190Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentPain Management and Opioid UseMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 102 of the 104 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 18 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Mind-Body Therapies for Opioid-Treated Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access

Abstract

Importance: Mind-body therapies (MBTs) are emerging as potential tools for addressing the opioid crisis. Knowing whether mind-body therapies may benefit patients treated with opioids for acute, procedural, and chronic pain conditions may be useful for prescribers, payers, policy makers, and patients. Objective: To evaluate the association of MBTs with pain and opioid dose reduction in a diverse adult population with clinical pain. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for English-language randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews from date of inception to March 2018. Search logic included (pain OR analgesia OR opioids) AND mind-body therapies. The gray literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and relevant bibliographies were also searched. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials that evaluated the use of MBTs for symptom management in adults also prescribed opioids for clinical pain. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent reviewers screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences in pain and opioid dose to obtain aggregate estimates of effect size with 95% CIs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity. The secondary outcomes were opioid dose, opioid misuse, opioid craving, disability, or function. Results: Of 4212 citations reviewed, 60 reports with 6404 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, MBTs were associated with pain reduction (Cohen d = -0.51; 95% CI, -0.76 to -0.26) and reduced opioid dose (Cohen d = -0.26; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.08). Studies tested meditation (n = 5), hypnosis (n = 25), relaxation (n = 14), guided imagery (n = 7), therapeutic suggestion (n = 6), and cognitive behavioral therapy (n = 7) interventions. Moderate to large effect size improvements in pain outcomes were found for meditation (Cohen d = -0.70), hypnosis (Cohen d = -0.54), suggestion (Cohen d = -0.68), and cognitive behavioral therapy (Cohen d = -0.43) but not for other MBTs. Although most meditation (n = 4 [80%]), cognitive-behavioral therapy (n = 4 [57%]), and hypnosis (n = 12 [63%]) studies found improved opioid-related outcomes, fewer studies of suggestion, guided imagery, and relaxation reported such improvements. Most MBT studies used active or placebo controls and were judged to be at low risk of bias. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that MBTs are associated with moderate improvements in pain and small reductions in opioid dose and may be associated with therapeutic benefits for opioid-related problems, such as opioid craving and misuse. Future studies should carefully quantify opioid dosing variables to determine the association of mind-body therapies with opioid-related outcomes.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that mind-body therapies (MBTs) were associated with moderate reductions in pain and small reductions in opioid dose among adults prescribed opioids for clinical pain. Effects varied by MBT type, with meditation, hypnosis, therapeutic suggestion, and CBT showing significant pain associations, while evidence for opioid-related outcomes was limited by poor opioid dosing reporting.

Key findings

  • Across 29 studies (n = 2916; 1679 receiving MBT), MBTs were associated with moderate pain reduction: Cohen d = −0.51 (95% CI, −0.76 to −0.26; P < .001).
  • Across 8 studies (n = 435; 250 receiving MBT), MBTs were associated with small opioid dose reduction: Cohen d = −0.26 (95% CI, −0.44 to −0.08; P = .01).
  • Significant pain associations were found for meditation (d = −0.70), hypnosis (d = −0.54), therapeutic suggestion (d = −0.68), and CBT (d = −0.43), but not relaxation (d = −0.45; 95% CI, −1.13 to 0.22; P = .19); guided imagery had insufficient pain data for meta-analysis.
  • Opioid-related improvements were reported in 4 of 5 meditation studies (80%), 4 of 7 CBT studies (57%), and 12 hypnosis studies (63%), with fewer suggestion, guided imagery, and relaxation studies reporting such improvements; 2 relaxation studies reported significantly worsened opioid dosing outcomes.

Methods

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA; searched MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library from inception to March 2018, plus gray literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and bibliographies.
  • Included randomized clinical trials of adults aged ≥18 years prescribed opioids for chronic, acute, procedural, or cancer pain, testing psychologically oriented MBTs (meditation, hypnosis, guided imagery, relaxation, therapeutic suggestion, CBT); excluded acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and yoga/Tai Chi without formal meditation, as well as studies without pain outcomes or with unspecified analgesics.
  • Independent screening, data extraction, and Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment; mixed-effects meta-analyses in R Metafor using standardized mean differences, with pain standardized to a 0–10 numeric rating scale and opioid dose converted to morphine equivalents; heterogeneity assessed with Q and I², publication bias with funnel plots and Egger test.

Limitations

  • The paper states that high study heterogeneity precluded quantitative conclusions about outcome modifiers such as dose or delivery format, or about durability of treatment effects; outcomes ranged from immediate postintervention to 3 months or longer.
  • Approximately one-third of studies had small samples and may have been underpowered; some trials had risk of bias from lack of blinding of participants, personnel, and/or outcome assessors, and lack of intention-to-treat analysis; nearly half were conducted before the revised CONSORT statement in 2001, and funnel plots/Egger statistic indicated some publication bias for meditation and suggestion studies.
  • Opioid dosing was insufficiently reported: less than one-fifth of reviewed trials yielded opioid dosing data sufficient for meta-analysis, and many studies were excluded because the analgesic type was unspecified or outcomes for opioid users were not analyzed separately; only 8 studies contributed to the opioid dose meta-analysis, and separate meta-analyses by MBT type for opioid dosing could not be conducted.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4917

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

28 Own result · 23 Own method · 13 Not checked yet · 11 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given

Verify all 18 references — free account

Show all 52 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 18
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 13
25 of 25
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Mind-body therapies may ameliorate pain and prevent downstream transitions from long-term opioid use to opioid use disorder.

    “Mind-body therapies might ameliorate pain and prevent downstream transitions from long-term opioid use to OUD.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participant self-report of opioid use is unreliable.

    “Because participant self-report is unreliable, if possible, data should be extracted from electronic health records and prescription drug monitoring programs.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The National Institutes of Health HEAL initiative has called for studies of mind-body therapies as interventions for pain and opioid use disorder.

    “Thus, the National Institutes of Health initiative Helping to End Addiction in the Long Term (HEAL) has called for studies of MBTs as interventions for pain and OUD.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Mind-body therapies that primarily use mental techniques may be more accessible to people whose mobility is compromised by pain or used for pain relief during inpatient procedures when patients are immobilized.

    “We elected to focus our review on MBTs that primarily use mental techniques because they may be more accessible to people whose mobility is compromised by pain or used for pain relief during inpatient procedures when patients are immobilized.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Less pain and lower opioid use among patients on opioid therapy for various pain conditions will reduce the opioid crisis.

    “Insofar as MBTs are associated with pain relief and opioid use reduction among patients prescribed opioids for a range of pain conditions, MBTs may help alleviate the opioid crisis.”
5 of 5

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentz = -0.65reported p = .52 · recomputed p = .516

    “(z = -0.65,p = .52”

  • Consistentz = -0.3reported p = .76 · recomputed p = .764

    “(z = -0.30,p = .76”

2 of 2

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

6 of 6

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2017, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Pain Management and the Opioid Epidemic: Balancing Societal and Individual Benefits and Risks of Prescription Opioid Use

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Garland, E. L., Brintz, C. E., Hanley, A. W., Roseen, E. J., Atchley, R. M., Gaylord, S. A., Faurot, K. R., Yaffe, J., Fiander, M., & Keefe, F. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Independent consultant, Halifax, Nova Scotia
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Garland, Eric L.
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2020-01-01
Volume
180
Issue
1
Pages
91
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2984126577
Cited by
190
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 19
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1f32at009272-01)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R34DA040954, R01DA042033)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR013910)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (K23AT010487, R61AT009296, UG3AT009790, T32AT003378, U24AT009769)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
mind-body interventions, opioid use, pain management, opioid dose reduction, meditation, hypnosis, guided imagery, therapeutic suggestion, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation, opioid misuse, chronic pain, acute pain, procedural pain, opioid epidemic, opioid craving, opioid withdrawal symptoms
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Meditation, Chronic Pain, Pain Management

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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