The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions in acute pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Recent meta-analyses have shown mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) to be effective for chronic pain, but no pooled estimates of the effect of MBIs on acute pain are available. This meta-analysis was conducted to fill that gap. A literature search was conducted in 4 databases. Articles were eligible if they reported on randomized controlled trials of MBIs for people with acute pain and one of the following outcomes: pain severity, pain threshold, pain tolerance, or pain-related distress. Two authors independently extracted the data, assessed risk of bias, and provided GRADE ratings. Twenty-two studies were included. There was no evidence of an effect of MBIs on the primary outcome of pain severity in clinical {Hedges' g = 0.52; (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.241 to 1.280)} or experimental settings (Hedges' g = 0.04; 95% CI [−0.161 to 0.247]). There was a beneficial effect of MBIs on pain tolerance (Hedges' g = 0.68; 95% CI [0.157-1.282]) and pain threshold (Hedges' g = 0.72; 95% CI [0.210-1.154]) in experimental studies. There was no evidence of an effect of MBIs compared to control for pain-related distress in clinical (Hedges' g = 0.16; 95% CI [−0.018 to 0.419]) or experimental settings (Hedges' g = 0.44; 95% CI [−0.164 to 0.419]). GRADE assessment indicated that except for pain tolerance, the data were of low or very low quality. There is moderate evidence that MBIs are efficacious in increasing pain tolerance and weak evidence for pain threshold. However, there is an absence of good-quality evidence for the efficacy of MBIs for reducing the pain severity or pain-related distress in either clinical or experimental settings.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Three reviews evaluated mindfulness interventions following injury, and all reviews reported no evidence for improvements in distress-related outcomes.4547”
From Impact of healthcare interventions on distress following acute musculoskeletal/orthopaedic injury: A scoping review of systematic reviews (2024) · cites this paper as [47]
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Montori, V., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Djulbegovic, B., Atkins, D., Falck-Ytter, Y., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011 · Cited by 1,819
The clinical use of mindfulness meditation for the self-regulation of chronic pain
Kabat-Zinn, J., Lipworth, L., & Burney, R. (1985) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf00845519 · Cited by 1,745
Mindfulness-based stress reduction for healthy individuals: A meta-analysis
Khoury, B., Sharma, M., Rush, S. E., & Fournier, C. (2015) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.03.009 · Cited by 1,617 · cited 1×
“Mindfulness is an effective intervention for a range of indications.(3,23,24) Meta-analyses confirm that mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are efficacious for managing stress,(3,24) depression,(16,22) and physical health problems.”
BackgroundVan Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. D., Olendzki, A., Meissner, T., Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Gorchov, J., et al. (2018) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617709589 · Cited by 1,506 · cited 2×
“The absence of an effect on pain severity may not be surprising in a chronic pain setting because most psychosocial interventions for chronic pain do not focus on changing pain severity but rather on accepting the pain and changing behaviours, which lead to improvements in functional outcomes.(10,40,41) However, this…”
BackgroundMethod
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cayoun, B. A., & Shires, A. G. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.545945 · Cited by 36
Self-citationDavies, J. N., Sharpe, L., Day, M. A., & Colagiuri, B. (2022) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002593 · Cited by 18
Mascaro, J. S., Singh, V., Wehrmeyer, K., Scott, B., Juan, J., McKenzie-Brown, A. M., Lane, O. P., & Haack, C. (2021) · PAIN Reports · doi:10.1097/pr9.0000000000000924 · Cited by 14
Sim, A., McNeilage, A. G., Gholamrezaei, A., Rebbeck, T., & Ashton-James, C. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085778 · Cited by 8
“The total duration of interventions ranged from 1 week to 12 months.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Shires, A., Sharpe, L., Davies, J. N., & Newton-John, T. R. O.
- Affiliations
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Sharpe, Louise
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2020-06-18
- Volume
- 161
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1698-1707
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- 1872-6623
- OpenAlex
- W3035847997
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 0.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Keywords
- mindfulness-based interventions, acute pain, pain intensity, pain tolerance, pain threshold, pain-related distress, mindfulness meditation, pain management
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Pain Threshold, Acute Pain, Mindfulness
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
