Cited by 461Anesthesia and Pain ManagementPain Management and TreatmentMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Psychosocial predictors and correlates for chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP)—a systematic review.

Hinrichs‐Rocker, Anke, Schulz, Kerstin, Järvinen, Imke, Lefering, Rolf, Simanski, Christian, Neugebauer, Edmund A.M.·2009·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

Chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) is a serious problem. Incidence as high as 50% has been reported, depending on type of surgery undergone. Because the etiology of chronic pain is grounded in the bio-psychosocial model, physical, psychological, and social factors are implicated in the development of CPSP. Biomedical factors such as pre-operative pain, severe acute post-operative pain, modes of anesthesia, and surgical approaches have been extensively examined, therefore this systematic review focuses on psychosocial elements. A systematic search was performed using the PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Databases. Fifty relevant publications were selected from this search, in which psychosocial predictors for and correlates to CPSP were identified. The level of evidence was assessed for each study, and corresponding score points were awarded for ease of comparison. The grade of association with CPSP for each predictor/correlate was then determined. Depression, psychological vulnerability, stress, and late return to work showed likely correlation with CPSP (grade of association=1). Other factors were determined to have either unlikely (grade of association=3) or inconclusive (grade of association=2) correlations. In addition, results were examined in light of the type of surgery undergone. This review is intended as a first step to develop an instrument for identifying patients at high risk for CPSP, to optimize clinical pain management.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejpain.2008.07.015

Cites

82 of 82 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
Hinrichs‐Rocker, A., Schulz, K., Järvinen, I., Lefering, R., Simanski, C., & Neugebauer, E. A. M.
Affiliations
Witten/Herdecke University (DE)
Corresponding author
Neugebauer, Edmund A.M.
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-08
Volume
13
Issue
7
Pages
719-730
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W2112752919
Cited by
461
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 21
FWCI
1.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
chronic postoperative pain, psychosocial factors, depression, psychological vulnerability, stress, biopsychosocial model, risk prediction, pain management
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Depression, Humans, Postoperative Pain, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Stress, Psychological, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Work, Databases, Factual

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