CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 136Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPain Management and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is there a potential role for attention bias modification in pain patients? Results of 2 randomised, controlled trials.

Sharpe, Louise, Ianiello, Melissa, Dear, Blake F., Perry, Kathryn Nicholson, Refshauge, Kathryn, Nicholas, Michael K.·2012·Pain
DOI 10.1016/j.pain.2011.12.014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Potential applications of attention bias modification (ABM) for acute and chronic pain patients are investigated. In study 1, 54 acute back pain patients (46 of whom completed the study) were recruited at their initial physiotherapy session and randomised to receive 1 session of ABM or placebo. Patients were followed up 3 months later. Participants who were randomised to receive ABM reported less average (P=0.001) and current pain (P=0.008) and experienced pain for fewer days (P=0.01) than those who received placebo. In study 2, 34 chronic pain patients were recruited and randomly assigned to receive either 4 sessions of ABM (n=22) or placebo (n=12), followed by 8 sessions of cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT). After ABM, there was a significant group-by-time effect for disability. By 6-month follow-up, differences had emerged between the 2 training groups, such that the ABM group had shown greater reductions in anxiety sensitivity and disability than the placebo group. Although the results of these studies show that there is potential in the application of ABM to pain conditions, the mechanisms of treatment could not be established. Neither group showed an initial bias towards the word stimuli or a training effect, and only in the acute pain group were changes in biases related to outcome. Nonetheless, the fact that 2 independent samples showed a positive effect of ABM on clinical outcomes suggests that ABM is worthy of future study as an intervention for pain patients.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2011.12.014

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 136

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sharpe, L., Ianiello, M., Dear, B. F., Perry, K. N., Refshauge, K., & Nicholas, M. K.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
Corresponding author
Sharpe, Louise
ORCID
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2012-03
Volume
153
Issue
3
Pages
722-731
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pain.2011.12.014
OpenAlex
W2029321389
Cited by
136
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
attentional bias modification, acute low back pain, chronic pain, pain-related anxiety, anxiety sensitivity, disability, cognitive behavioral therapy, placebo effect, pain intensity
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anxiety, Attention, Behavior Therapy, Depression, Disability Evaluation, Double-Blind Method, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Vocabulary, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Bias, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

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