Cited by 331Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPain Management and Placebo Effect

Effect of Pain Reprocessing Therapy vs Placebo and Usual Care for Patients With Chronic Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Ashar, Yoni K., Gordon, Alan, Schubiner, Howard, Uipi, Christie, Knight, Karen, Anderson, Zachary, Carlisle, Judith, Polisky, Laurie +6 more·2022·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

Importance: Chronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability, and treatment is often ineffective. Approximately 85% of cases are primary CBP, for which peripheral etiology cannot be identified, and maintenance factors include fear, avoidance, and beliefs that pain indicates injury. Objective: To test whether a psychological treatment (pain reprocessing therapy [PRT]) aiming to shift patients' beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain provides substantial and durable pain relief from primary CBP and to investigate treatment mechanisms. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial with longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and 1-year follow-up assessment was conducted in a university research setting from November 2017 to August 2018, with 1-year follow-up completed by November 2019. Clinical and fMRI data were analyzed from January 2019 to August 2020. The study compared PRT with an open-label placebo treatment and with usual care in a community sample. Interventions: Participants randomized to PRT participated in 1 telehealth session with a physician and 8 psychological treatment sessions over 4 weeks. Treatment aimed to help patients reconceptualize their pain as due to nondangerous brain activity rather than peripheral tissue injury, using a combination of cognitive, somatic, and exposure-based techniques. Participants randomized to placebo received an open-label subcutaneous saline injection in the back; participants randomized to usual care continued their routine, ongoing care. Main Outcomes and Measures: One-week mean back pain intensity score (0 to 10) at posttreatment, pain beliefs, and fMRI measures of evoked pain and resting connectivity. Results: At baseline, 151 adults (54% female; mean [SD] age, 41.1 [15.6] years) reported mean (SD) pain of low to moderate severity (mean [SD] pain intensity, 4.10 [1.26] of 10; mean [SD] disability, 23.34 [10.12] of 100) and mean (SD) pain duration of 10.0 (8.9) years. Large group differences in pain were observed at posttreatment, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.18 (1.24) in the PRT group, 2.84 (1.64) in the placebo group, and 3.13 (1.45) in the usual care group. Hedges g was -1.14 for PRT vs placebo and -1.74 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001). Of 151 total participants, 33 of 50 participants (66%) randomized to PRT were pain-free or nearly pain-free at posttreatment (reporting a pain intensity score of 0 or 1 of 10), compared with 10 of 51 participants (20%) randomized to placebo and 5 of 50 participants (10%) randomized to usual care. Treatment effects were maintained at 1-year follow-up, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.51 (1.59) in the PRT group, 2.79 (1.78) in the placebo group, and 3.00 (1.77) in the usual care group. Hedges g was -0.70 for PRT vs placebo (P = .001) and -1.05 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001) at 1-year follow-up. Longitudinal fMRI showed (1) reduced responses to evoked back pain in the anterior midcingulate and the anterior prefrontal cortex for PRT vs placebo; (2) reduced responses in the anterior insula for PRT vs usual care; (3) increased resting connectivity from the anterior prefrontal cortex and the anterior insula to the primary somatosensory cortex for PRT vs both control groups; and (4) increased connectivity from the anterior midcingulate to the precuneus for PRT vs usual care. Conclusions and Relevance: Psychological treatment centered on changing patients' beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain may provide substantial and durable pain relief for people with CBP. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03294148.

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/jamapsychiatry.2021.2669

Cites

75 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • In a study on patients with chronic lower back pain, pain reprocessing therapy produced significant pain relief relative to placebo and usual care, mediated by decreased fear and threat beliefs.

    “In a study on patients with chronic lower back pain, it produced significant pain relief relative to placebo and usual care, mediated by decreased fear and threat beliefs (Ashar et al., 2022).”
  • There are highly successful therapeutic approaches, notably to chronic back pain, that proceed from this insight, engage with catastrophic thinking and give it a positive twist.

    “There are highly successful therapeutic approaches, notably to chronic back pain, that proceed from this insight, engage with catastrophic thinking and give it a positive twist [22].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ashar, Y. K., Gordon, A., Schubiner, H., Uipi, C., Knight, K., Anderson, Z., Carlisle, J., Polisky, L., Geuter, S., Flood, T. F., Kragel, P. A., Dimidjian, S., Lumley, M. A., & Wager, T. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Pain Psychology Center, Los Angeles, California
  • Ascension Providence Hospital (US)
  • Panorama Orthopedics and Spine Center, Golden, Colorado
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
  • Ashar, Yoni K.
  • Wager, Tor D.
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2022-01-01
Volume
79
Issue
1
Pages
13
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3204387157
Cited by
331
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 2
FWCI
23.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • National Institutes of Health (TL1TR002386)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076136)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA035484)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
chronic back pain, pain beliefs, fear avoidance, placebo effect, psychological intervention, telemedicine, evoked pain, resting-state functional connectivity, therapeutic mechanisms, pain intensity, disability, treatment durability, fear-avoidance beliefs, pain catastrophizing, pain-related guilt, pain-related shame, pain-related hopelessness
MeSH terms
Adult, Back Pain, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Treatment Outcome, 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.

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