Symptoms of distress as prospective predictors of pain-related sciatica treatment outcomes
Abstract
Prior studies evaluating predictors of pain-related outcomes following treatment for sciatica have been limited by methodological problems, including retrospective study design, use of unvalidated outcome measures, and short-term follow-up periods. Despite these limitations, some reports have suggested that symptoms of psychological distress may predict individual differences in pain treatment-related outcomes (e.g., higher levels of depressive and anxious symptomatology are associated with greater pain and disability after treatment). In this study, we sought to determine whether acute symptoms of depression and anxiety were prospectively associated with treatment outcomes over a 3-year follow-up period in surgically treated and non-surgically treated patients with sciatica. Patients were recruited from the practices of community-based physicians throughout the state of Maine, and underwent in-person baseline assessments, with mailed follow-up questionnaires at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Study outcomes included patient-reported symptoms of pain and disability. For each outcome variable, we examined whether baseline mood (i.e., mood assessed prior to the initiation of treatment), as well as mood at the immediately preceding assessment point, prospectively predicted outcomes over 3 years in multivariate repeated-measures analyses. In most analyses, symptoms of depression and anxiety, both at baseline and at the preceding time point, were significant independent predictors of worse pain and function after controlling for relevant covariates. Collectively, elevated distress appears to be a significant risk factor for reduced treatment benefit (i.e., less improvement in pain and disability) over short and medium-term follow-up periods in patients with sciatica. Future research should determine whether the prospective identification and treatment of patients with high levels of distress (a "yellow flag") is associated with improved treatment outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 cancer pain, social support and interpersonal interaction preferences appear to play an important role in shaping pain reports and general health.
“In cancer pain, social support interpersonal interaction preferences (e.g., discomfort with closeness and interdependence in relationships) seem to play an important role in shaping pain reports and general health 91.”
From Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as [91]
Generalized positive outcome expectancy, or dispositional optimism, is related to increased feelings of control, use of more active coping strategies, and better functional performance.
“Generalized positive outcome expectancy, or dispositional optimism 348–350, is related to increased feelings of control, the use of more active coping strategies, and better functional performance 91, 351–353.”
From Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as [91]
Among people who seek care for chronic musculoskeletal pain, those with coexisting depression and/or anxiety report worse pain, greater physical impairment, increased postoperative opioid use, and a lower rate of return to work than those without depression and anxiety.
“For example, among people who seek care for chronic musculoskeletal pain, those with coexisting depression and/or anxiety report worse pain, greater physical impairment, increased postoperative opioid use, and a lower rate of return to work than those without depression and anxiety [8-11].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 75
- Authors
- Edwards, R. R., Klick, B., Buenaver, L., Max, M. B., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Keller, R. B., & Atlas, S. J.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Edwards, Robert R.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2007-07
- Volume
- 130
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-55
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2013812770
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 2.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5p60ar048094-05, 7k23ar051315-05)
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS 06344, HS 08194, HS-09804)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K24NS002225, K24-NS02225, R21NS048593)
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K23-AR051315, P60 AR048094-01A1)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
- Keywords
- sciatica, psychological distress, depression, anxiety, predictors of treatment outcome, surgical treatment, conservative treatment, disability, yellow flags, mood, long-term follow-up
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Affect, Affective Symptoms, Anxiety, Depression, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Intervertebral Disc Displacement, Lumbar Vertebrae, Male, Postoperative Pain, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sciatica, Treatment Outcome, Diskectomy
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
