Cited by 119Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPediatric Pain Management Techniques

Review: Can we identify how programmes aimed at promoting self‐management in musculoskeletal pain work and who benefits? A systematic review of sub‐group analysis within RCTs

Milesl, Clare L., Pincusl, Tamar, Carnesl, Dawn, Homerl, Kate E., Taylorl, Stephanie J.C., Bremnerl, Stephen A., Rahmanl, Anisur, Underwoodl, Martin·2011·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

Background:There are now several systematic reviews of RCTs testing self‐management for those with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of self‐management interventions in chronic musculoskeletal pain is equivocal and it is not clear for which sub‐groups of patients SM is optimally effective. Aims:To systematically review randomized controlled trials of self‐management for chronic musculoskeletal pain that reported predictors, i.e., ‘baseline factors that predict outcome independent of any treatment effect’; moderators, i.e., ‘baseline factors which predict benefit from a particular treatment’; or mediators i.e., ‘factors measured during treatment that impact on outcome’ of outcome. Method:We searched relevant electronic databases. We assessed the evidence according to the methodological strengths of the studies. We did meta‐regression analyses for age and gender, as potential moderators. Results:Although the methodological quality of primary trials was good, there were few relevant studies; most were compromised by lack of power for moderator and mediator analyses. We found strong evidence that self‐efficacy and depression at baseline predict outcome and strong evidence that pain catastrophizing and physical activity can mediate outcome from self‐management. There was insufficient data on moderators of treatment. Conclusions:The current evidence suggests four factors that relate to outcome as predictors/mediators, but there is no evidence for effect moderators. Future studies of mediation and moderation should be designed with ‘a priori’ hypotheses and adequate statistical power.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.01.016

Cites

43 of 43 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
Milesl, C. L., Pincusl, T., Carnesl, D., Homerl, K. E., Taylorl, S. J. C., Bremnerl, S. A., Rahmanl, A., & Underwoodl, M.
Affiliations
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-09
Volume
15
Issue
8
Pages
775.e1-11
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W1601295127
Cited by
119
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • Royal Holloway Digital Repository (Royal Holloway University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
self-management, chronic musculoskeletal pain, predictors of treatment outcome, treatment moderators, self-efficacy, depression, pain catastrophizing, physical activity, age and gender moderators, meta-regression
MeSH terms
Humans, Pain Measurement, Predictive Value of Tests, Self Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Musculoskeletal 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.

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