Cited by 116Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Psychological Interventions Delivered by Physiotherapists on Pain, Disability and Psychological Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions

Silva Guerrero, Alma Viviana, Maujean, Annick, Campbell, Letitia, Sterling, Michele·2018·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of physiotherapist delivered psychological interventions combined with physiotherapy on pain, disability, and psychological outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal pain conditions. Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials from inception to May 2016. Studies were required to compare a psychological intervention delivered by physiotherapists combined with physiotherapy to physiotherapy alone or usual care. Physiotherapists delivering the interventions must have undergone training by a psychologist or a health professional trained in the delivery of psychological interventions. Results: A total of 34 articles met the eligibility criteria, of those, 30 were suitable for meta-analysis. There was low to high quality evidence that physiotherapist delivered psychological intervention combined with physiotherapy decreased pain in the short (26 studies, mean difference=−0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.65 to −0.09) and long term (22 studies, mean difference=−0.38; 95% CI, −0.67 to −0.10) and decreased disability in the short term (29 studies, standardized mean difference =−0.14; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.01). Effect sizes were small. Low to high quality evidence demonstrated small to medium effects for some psychological outcomes at short-term and long-term follow-ups. Discussion: The results indicate that psychological interventions delivered by physiotherapist show promise to improve health outcomes, particularly psychological outcomes, in musculoskeletal pain conditions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000601

Cites

82 of 82 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

1 of the 83 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Silva Guerrero, A. V., Maujean, A., Campbell, L., & Sterling, M.
Affiliations
  • Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast
  • Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Maujean, Annick
  • Campbell, Letitia
  • Sterling, Michele
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2018-09
Volume
34
Issue
9
Pages
838-857
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2791515116
Cited by
116
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
musculoskeletal pain, analgesia, disability, psychological outcomes
MeSH terms
Disability Evaluation, Humans, Psychotherapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Musculoskeletal Pain, Physical Therapists

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