Cited by 1,227Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment centers: a meta-analytic review.

Flor, Herta, Fydrich, Thomas, Turk, Dennis C.·1992·Pain

Abstract

Sixty-five studies that evaluated the efficacy of multidisciplinary treatments for chronic back pain were included in a meta-analysis. Within- and between-group effect sizes revealed that multidisciplinary treatments for chronic pain are superior to no treatment, waiting list, as well as single-discipline treatments such as medical treatment or physical therapy. Moreover, the effects appeared to be stable over time. The beneficial effects of multidisciplinary treatment were not limited to improvements in pain, mood and interference but also extended to behavioral variables such as return to work or use of the health care system. These results tend to support the efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment; however, these results must be interpreted cautiously as the quality of the study designs and study descriptions is marginal. Suggestions for improvement in research designs as well as appropriate reports of research completed are provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90145-2

Cites

109 of 109 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?

  • An early meta-analytic review found that conventional (monodisciplinary) physical and occupational therapy are better than no treatment or only medical treatment.

    “An early meta-analytic review [107] found that conventional (i.e., monodisciplinary) physical and occupational therapy are better than no treatment or only medical treatment.”
  • Monodisciplinary rehabilitation treatments are inferior to multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary treatment approaches, where physical and occupational therapy are combined with psychological intervention.

    “However, monodisciplinary rehabilitation treatments have been found to be inferior to multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary treatment approaches, where physical and occupation therapy are combined with psychological intervention [19,107].”
  • Cognitive and behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches to pain management have been used with chronic pain patients for many years.

    “Cognitive and behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches to pain management have been used with chronic pain patients for many years10”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Flor, H., Fydrich, T., & Turk, D. C.
Affiliations
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Flor, Herta
Venue
Pain
Published
1992-05
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
221-230
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2084250453
Cited by
1,227
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 42
FWCI
20.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
multidisciplinary pain management, chronic back pain, chronic pain, treatment efficacy, return to work, health care utilization, mood, pain interference, physiotherapy, medical treatment, study quality
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Care Team, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, 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