Cited by 175Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Placebo EffectMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Mind-body interactions in pain: the neurophysiology of anxious and catastrophic pain-related thoughts

Open access
Campbell, Claudia M., Edwards, Robert R.·2009·Translational research

Abstract

The well-accepted biopsychosocial model proposes that the experience of pain and responses to it result from a complex interaction of biological, psychological, and social factors. However, the separation of these constructs is substantially artificial, and we presume that psychological processes have biological effects, that biological processes affect an individual's psychosocial environment, and so on. Considerable research has demonstrated that pain-coping strategies influence perceived pain intensity and physical functioning, and individual differences in styles of pain coping even shape the persistence of long-term pain complaints in some populations. A good deal of this coping research has focused on catastrophizing, which is a generally maladaptive cognitive and emotional mental set that involves feelings of helplessness when in pain, rumination about pain symptoms, and magnification of pain-related complaints. Collectively, catastrophizing has been consistently associated with heightened experiences of pain across a variety of samples. Although catastrophic thinking regarding pain-related symptoms is often classified under the "psychologic" category within the broader biopsychosocial model, we propose that catastrophizing exerts biologic effects that may account for some of its negative consequences. In general, the cognitive and affective processes captured within the construct of catastrophizing may exert effects on the neuromuscular, cardiovascular, immune, and neuroendocrine systems, and on the activity in the pain neuromatrix within the brain. The interface between pain-related neurobiology and processes such as pain-related catastrophizing represents an important avenue for future pain research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.trsl.2008.12.002

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Catastrophizing has been linked to increased hypervigilance and heightened activity in brain regions involved in threat detection and affective processing.

    “Additionally, catastrophizing has been linked to increased hypervigilance and heightened activity in brain regions involved in threat detection and affective processing.45,46”

    From Acceptance and commitment therapy for prevention of chronic pain after total knee arthroplasty. (2026) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Functional Neuroimaging Studies section (page unavailable) reports that higher catastrophizing is associated with increased pain-related activity in the insula and anterior cingulate cortex, regions it links to emotional and motivational responses to pain. The passages found do not establish the separate claim of increased hypervigilance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Campbell, C. M., & Edwards, R. R.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Edwards, Robert R.
Venue
Translational research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
153
Issue
3
Pages
97-101
ISSN
  • 1878-1810 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-5244
OpenAlex
W2057603114
Cited by
175
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Translational research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (7k23ar051315-05)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (F32NS063624)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K23-AR051315)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, mind-body problem, biopsychosocial model, pain coping, pain perception, rumination, helplessness
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Humans, Inflammation, Nervous System Physiological Phenomena, Pain, Psychophysiology, Thinking

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