Cited by 318Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

Psychological interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Astin, John A., Beckner, William, Soeken, Karen, Hochberg, Marc C., Berman, Brian·2002·Arthritis Care & Research

Abstract

Objective To carry out a systematic review of the literature examining the efficacy of psychological interventions (e.g., relaxation, biofeedback, cognitive-behavioral therapy) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Studies that met the following criteria were included: random assignment, wait-list or usual care control condition; publication in peer-reviewed journals; treatment that included some psychological component beyond simply providing education information; and separate data provided for patients with RA if subjects with conditions other than RA were included. Two investigators independently extracted data on study design, sample size and characteristics, type of intervention, type of control, direction and nature of the outcome(s). Results Twenty-five trials met the inclusion criteria. Methodologic quality was assessed, and effect sizes were calculated for 6 outcomes. Significant pooled effect sizes were found postintervention for pain (0.22), functional disability (0.27), psychological status (0.15), coping (0.46), and self efficacy (0.35). At followup (averaging 8.5 months), significant pooled effect sizes were observed for tender joints (0.33), psychological status (0.30), and coping (0.52). No clear or consistent patterns emerged when effect sizes for different types of treatment and control conditions were compared, or when higher quality trials were compared to lower quality ones. Findings do, however, suggest that these psychological interven…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.10416

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Astin, J. A., Beckner, W., Soeken, K., Hochberg, M. C., & Berman, B.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Venue
Arthritis Care & Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-06-05
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
291-302
ISSN
  • 0893-7524 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-0123
OpenAlex
W2048673746
Cited by
318
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 22
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Arthritis Care & Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (5-P50A-T00084-03)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
rheumatoid arthritis, psychological intervention, relaxation, biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, pain, functional disability, coping, self-efficacy, psychological state, tender joint count, adjunctive therapy, disease duration
MeSH terms
Arthritis, Rheumatoid, Biofeedback, Psychology, Humans, Relaxation Therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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