The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Does Nonsurgical Pain Center Treatment of Chronic Pain Return Patients to Work?: A Review and Meta-analysis of the Literature
Abstract
Evidence in the literature relating to return to work as an outcome variable for nonsurgical treatment for chronic pain was examined. Study selection criteria were as follows: a detailed definition of patient work status, delineation of work status pre-treatment and at follow-up, and documentation of the proportion of patients employed at follow-up. Of 171 studies reviewed, 37 fulfilled these selection criteria. Because the data were objective in nature, they were abstracted by the senior author only. For the coded variables of time to follow-up, proportion of patients working pre-treatment and at follow-up and number of patients, descriptive statistics and correlations were calculated. Change in employment status at follow-up was significant (P < .005) for all groups examined. In addition, comparisons for work outcome between treated patients versus patients rejected due to lack of insurance, and between treated patients versus patients who dropped out of treatment were both significant (P < .001). The mean difference in employment at follow-up for treated patients versus those not treated was approximately 50%. The proportion of patients working increased from 20% to 54% post chronic pain nonsurgical treatment. Correlation analyses did not find a significant trend in percent employed with time to follow-up. These results indicate that (1) chronic pain nonsurgical treatment does return patients to work; (2) increased rates of return to work are due to treatment, and (3) benefits of treatment are not temporary.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: Scientific advances and future directions.
Gatchel, R. J., Peng, Y. B., Peters, M. L., Fuchs, P. N., & Turk, D. C. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.581 · Cited by 3,392
Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review
Guzmán, J., Esmail, R., Karjalainen, K., Malmivaara, A., Irvin, E., & Bombardier, C. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7301.1511 · Cited by 941
Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain
Kamper, S. J., Apeldoorn, A. T., Chiarotto, A., Smeets, R. J. E. M., Ostelo, R. W., Guzman, J., & van Tulder, M. W. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000963.pub3 · Cited by 629
Gatchel, R. J., & Okifuji, A. (2006) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2006.08.005 · Cited by 535
Krause, N., Frank, J. W., Dasinger, L. K., Sullivan, T. J., & Sinclair, S. J. (2001) · American Journal of Industrial Medicine · doi:10.1002/ajim.1116 · Cited by 475
Metadata
- Authors
- Cutler, R. B., Fishbain, D. A., Rosomoff, H. L., Abdel-Moty, E., Khalil, T. M., & Rosomoff, R. S.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- Supplement
- Pages
- 643-652
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2032079752
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does Nonsurgical Pain Center Treatment of Chronic Pain Return Patients to Work?: A Review and Meta-analysis of the Literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-199403001-00002
- The paper
- Cutler, R. B., Fishbain, D. A., Rosomoff, H. L., Abdel-Moty, E., Khalil, T. M., & Rosomoff, R. S. (1994). Does Nonsurgical Pain Center Treatment of Chronic Pain Return Patients to Work?: A Review and Meta-analysis of the Literature. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199403001-00002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.