Cited by 254Gastrointestinal motility and disordersPediatric Pain Management TechniquesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Cognitive-Behavioral Family Intervention for Pediatric Recurrent Abdominal Pain

Robins, Paul M., Smith, Suzanne M., Glutting, Joseph J., Bishop, Chanelle T.·2005·Journal of Pediatric Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the combination of standard medical care (SMC) and short-term cognitive-behavioral family treatment (CBT) in the treatment of recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) was more effective than SMC alone. METHODS: Children recently diagnosed with RAP via physician examination were randomized into SMC (n = 29) and SMC plus CBT (n = 40) groups. Outcome measures included multiple dimensions of child and parent reported child pain, somatization, and functional disability, and school absences and physician contacts. RESULTS: Children and parents participating in the combined SMC + CBT intervention reported significantly less child and parent reported child abdominal pain than children in the SMC intervention immediately following the intervention and up to 1 year following study entry, as well as significantly fewer school absences. Significant differences in functional disability and somatization were not revealed. CONCLUSIONS: These results, in combination with previous studies, add support to the effectiveness of CBT intervention in reducing the sensory aspects of RAP. Results are discussed with respect to the cost-benefit of integrated medical and short-term psychological services.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jpepsy/jsi063

Cites

41 of 41 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

3 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robins, P. M., Smith, S. M., Glutting, J. J., & Bishop, C. T.
Affiliations
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
Corresponding author
Robins, Paul M.
Venue
Journal of Pediatric Psychology
Published
2005-02-23
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
397-408
ISSN
  • 0146-8693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-735X
OpenAlex
W2145613385
Cited by
254
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 20
FWCI
13.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pediatric Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Delaware
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
recurrent abdominal pain, cognitive behavioral therapy, family intervention, pediatric pain, somatization, functional disability, school absenteeism, parent-reported pain
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Demography, Female, Humans, Male, Pain Measurement, Recurrence, Severity of Illness Index, Somatoform Disorders, Abdominal Pain, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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