The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 18 of the 60 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Open accessAbstract
Many patients experience pain after surgery. Psychological factors such as emotion and cognition are shown to be associated with the development of acute and chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP). Therefore, the question arises whether targeting these psychological factors can reduce negative postsurgical outcomes. The aim of the current review was to investigate the efficacy of perioperative psychological interventions in reducing (sub)acute postsurgical pain and CPSP and disability in adults. Randomized controlled trials were identified through 4 databases (Web of Science, PsychINFO, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL]). The outcomes of interest were (sub)acute (ie, within 3 months after surgery) and chronic (>3 months after surgery) pain and disability. After screening, 21 studies were included in the final analyses. It was found that psychological interventions significantly reduced (sub)acute pain (d = -0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.48 to -0.04]) and disability (d = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.84 to -0.03]) as well as CPSP (d = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.61 to -0.06]) and disability (d = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.68 to -0.18]). In addition, interventions delivered after surgery and interventions delivered by a psychologist tended to be more effective than interventions delivered before surgery and interventions delivered by another healthcare provider. Furthermore, the current review points to the need for more research to determine which specific type of intervention may be most beneficial for surgical patients. Finally, the current review identified that research in this domain has concerns regarding bias in missing outcome data due to withdrawal and drop out. © 2022 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
68 Own result · 31 Own method · 24 Own interpretation · 16 Sources not found · 4 Partly supported · 3 Supported so far · 3 No full text of the sources · 3 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Psychological interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) have been proven to be effective in the management of chronic pain 16,24,35,46,62,67”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] 16. Ehde DM, Dillworth TM, Turner JA. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for individuals with chronic pain: efficacy, innovations, and directions for research. Am Psychol 2014;69:153-66. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] 24. Hughes LS, Clark J, Colclough JA, Dale E, McMillan D. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Clin J Pain 2017;33:552-68. source
- Partly supportedcites [35] 35. Ngamkham S, Holden J, Smith E. A systematic review: mindfulness intervention for cancer-related pain. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 2019;6: 161-9. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “The Need for Better Cancer Pain Treatments” (page unavailable), the review says CBT can help patients with chronic cancer-related pain develop coping skills and change how they think about pain. It does not discuss acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) or establish that both therapies are proven effective for chronic pain generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [46] 46. Rosenzweig S, Greeson JM, Reibel DK, Green JS, Jasser SA, Beasley D. Mindfulness-based stress reduction for chronic pain conditions: variation in treatment outcomes and role of home meditation practice. J Psychosom Res 2010;68:29-36. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [62] 62. Veehof MM, Oskam M-J, Schreurs KMG, Bohlmeijer ET. Acceptance- based interventions for the treatment of chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis: PAIN 2011;152:533-42. source
- Not matchedcites [67] 67. Williams ACDC, Fisher E, Hearn L, Eccleston C. Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;8:CD007407.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have summarized the available evidence and concluded that emotional and cognitive factors are significantly associated with both acute postsurgical pain 25,49,69 and CPSP.19,26,58”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [25] 25. Ip HYV, Abrishami A, Peng PW, Wong J, Chung F. Predictors of postoperative pain and analgesic consumption: a qualitative systematic review. Anesthesiol J Am Soc Anesthesiol 2009;111:657-77.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [49] 49. Sobol-Kwapinska M, Ba ˛bel P, Plotek W, Stelcer B. Psychological correlates of acute postsurgical pain: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Eur J Pain 2016;20:1573-86. source
- Partly supportedcites [69] 69. Yang MM, Hartley RL, Leung AA, Ronksley PE, Jett é N, Casha S, Riva- Cambrin J. Preoperative predictors of poor acute postoperative pain control: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2019;9: e025091. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Table 2; page unavailable) show significant associations between depressive and anxiety symptoms and poor acute postoperative pain control, supporting the emotional-factors portion. The Results also report that pain catastrophising, a cognitive factor, was not significant. This source is cited for acute pain in the printed sentence; the chronic-pain portion has separate citations. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] 19. Giusti EM, Lacerenza M, Manzoni GM, Castelnuovo G. Psychological and psychosocial predictors of chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PAIN 2020;162:10-30. source
- Supportedcites [26] 26. Jackson T, Tian P, Wang Y, Iezzi T, Xie W. Toward identifying moderators of associations between presurgery emotional distress and postoperative pain outcomes: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J Pain 2016;17: 874-88. source
The Discussion reports highly significant associations between presurgery emotional distress and postoperative pain outcomes, and identifies catastrophizing as a factor associated with pain intensity. It describes greater pain immediately after surgery among highly distressed patients and modest but significant associations in studies of chronic postsurgical pain. The claim is supported for the presurgery factors examined in this meta-analysis. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [58] 58. Theunissen M, Peters ML, Bruce J, Gramke H-F, Marcus MA. Preoperative anxiety and catastrophizing: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association with chronic postsurgical pain. Clin J Pain 2012;28:819-41. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Unrelieved acute postsurgical pain increases the risk that it develops into chronic pain.8,28”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] 8. Chapman CR, Vierck CJ. The transition of acute postoperative pain to chronic pain: an integrative overview of research on mechanisms. J Pain 2017;18:1-359. source
- Supportedcites [28] 28. Lavand'homme PM, Grosu I, Rn M-NF, Thienpont E. Pain trajectories identify patients at risk of persistent pain after knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:1409-15. source
The Introduction identifies the severity of acute postoperative pain as a risk factor for persistent pain, including after knee arthroplasty. The Discussion reports that patients with more severe pain in the first postoperative week were more likely to report pain three months later. The paper describes an increased risk, not an inevitable progression to chronic pain. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Prospective studies have identified various risk factors for both early and late postsurgical pain, including psychological factors.23,40,41,50”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23] 23. Hoofwijk DMN, Fiddelers AAA, Peters ML, Stessel B, Kessels AGH, Joosten EA, Gramke H-F, Marcus MAE. Prevalence and predictive factors of chronic postsurgical pain and poor global recovery 1 year after outpatient surgery. Clin J Pain 2015;31:1017-25.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [40] 40. Peters ML, Sommer M, de Rijke JM, Kessels F, Heineman E, Patijn J, Marcus MAE, Vlaeyen JWS, van Kleef M. Somatic and psychologic predictors of long-term unfavorable outcome after surgical intervention. Ann Surg 2007;245:487-94. source
The Results report that preoperative fear of surgery was associated with more pain six months later in this prospective cohort. The paper also describes preoperative anxiety and catastrophizing as determinants of acute postoperative pain (background passage [7]). Together, these passages support the claim that psychological factors are among the identified risk factors for early and late postsurgical pain. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] 41. Pinto PR, McIntyre T, Ara újo-Soares V, Almeida A, Costa P. Psychological factors predict an unfavorable pain trajectory after hysterectomy: a prospective cohort study on chronic postsurgical pain. PAIN 2018;159:956-67. source
- Supportedcites [50] 50. Sommer M, de Rijke JM, van Kleef M, Kessels AGH, Patijn J, Gramke H-F, Marcus MAE. Predictors of acute postoperative pain after elective surgery. Clin J Pain 2010;26:87-94. source
The Discussion describes a prospective study that identified expected pain, catastrophizing, and fear as predictors of pain during the first four postoperative days. The Psychologic Parameters section also reports an earlier finding that long-term surgical fear was associated with more pain at six months. Together, these passages support psychological factors as risk factors for early and later postsurgical pain. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“When looking at individual studies, 3 of them showed large effect sizes for all or most of their outcomes.7,10,32”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.1. Effect sizes and moderators
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] 7. Cai L, Gao H, Xu H, Wang Y, Lyu P, Liu Y. Does a program based on cognitive behavioral therapy affect kinesiophobia in patients following total knee arthroplasty? A randomized, controlled trial with a 6-month follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2018;33:704-10. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] 10. Cupal DD, Brewer BW. Effects of relaxation and guided imagery on knee strength, reinjury anxiety, and pain following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Rehabil Psychol 2001;46:28-43. source
- Supportedcites [32] 32. Monticone M, Ferrante S, Teli M, Rocca B, Foti C, Lovi A, Brayda Bruno M. Management of catastrophising and kinesiophobia improves rehabilitation after fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis and stenosis. A randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J 2014;23:87-95. source
For this cited study, Table 2 (presented in the Discussion; page unavailable) gives group means and standard deviations showing large experimental-versus-control differences for most outcomes. The Primary outcome section also reports significantly greater improvement in the experimental group across the outcome measures. This paper supports its place among the three studies cited, though it does not itself assess the other two. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while interventions delivered both preoperatively and postoperatively did not (d 5 20.07, P 5 0.41).”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.4.2.5. Timing of intervention
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For (sub)acute pain outcomes, 9 studies made use of CBT-based interventions, whereas 2 made use of other interventions, and thus, no moderator analyses were performed.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.4.2.2. Type of intervention
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results showed a significant moderator effect (Q 1 5 5.30, P 5 0.02), indicating that some of the variance between studies might be explained by the intervention provider.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.4.2.3. Intervention provider
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interventions delivered postoperatively had a significant effect on (sub)acute pain outcomes (d 5 21.10, P 5 0.01)”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.4.2.5. Timing of intervention
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interventions delivered by a psychologist had a significant effect on (sub)acute disability outcomes (d 5 20.64, P 5 0.02)”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.4.2.3. Intervention provider
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 31
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Twelve studies evaluated (sub)acute outcomes, 2,7,11,12,18,21,29,32,39,44,45,55 and all but 2 studies 2,18 evaluated chronic outcomes.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.2. Description of studies included
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [2] 2. Anthony CA, Rojas EO, Keffala V, Glass NA, Shah AS, Miller BJ, Hogue M, Willey MC, Karam M, Marsh JL. Acceptance and commitment therapy delivered via a mobile phone messaging robot to decrease postoperative opioid use in patients with orthopedic trauma: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2020;22:e17750. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (Outcome Measures; page unavailable) describe this trial’s outcomes at a 2-week follow-up, supporting its inclusion among studies evaluating (sub)acute outcomes. The paper does not report a chronic-outcome assessment, so it does not support counting this trial among the studies that evaluated chronic outcomes. As an individual trial, it also cannot establish the citing document’s total of twelve studies. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] 7. Cai L, Gao H, Xu H, Wang Y, Lyu P, Liu Y. Does a program based on cognitive behavioral therapy affect kinesiophobia in patients following total knee arthroplasty? A randomized, controlled trial with a 6-month follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2018;33:704-10. source
- Supportedcites [11] 11. Darnall BD, Ziadni MS, Krishnamurthy P, Flood P, Heathcote LC, Mackey IG, Taub CJ, Wheeler A. "My surgical success": effect of a digital behavioral pain medicine intervention on time to opioid cessation after breast cancer surgery-a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial. Pain Med 2019;20:2228-37. source
The Methods > Assessments section (page unavailable) reports patient-reported outcomes at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after surgery. That supports citing this trial as a study evaluating both earlier postsurgical and approximately three-month outcomes; the totals across studies are the citing paper’s synthesis, not a finding attributed to this individual trial. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Supportedcites [12] 12. Dindo L, Zimmerman MB, Hadlandsmyth K, StMarie B, Embree J, Marchman J, Tripp-Reimer T, Rakel B. Acceptance and commitment therapy for prevention of chronic postsurgical pain and opioid use in at- risk veterans: a pilot randomized controlled study. J Pain 2018;19: 1211-21. source
The Primary Outcome Measures section describes daily postoperative pain and medication logs, supporting this trial's inclusion among studies evaluating (sub)acute outcomes. The Procedures section also reports a three-month postoperative assessment, supporting its inclusion among studies evaluating longer-term outcomes (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] 18. Garssen B, Boomsma MF, de Jager Meezenbroek E, Porsild T, Berkhof J, Berbee M, Visser A, Meijer S, Beelen RHJ. Stress management training for breast cancer surgery patients: SMT for breast cancer surgery patients. Psychooncology 2013;22:572-80. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] 21. Hadlandsmyth K, Dindo LN, Wajid R, Sugg SL, Zimmerman MB, Rakel BA. A single-session acceptance and commitment therapy intervention among women undergoing surgery for breast cancer: a randomized pilot trial to reduce persistent postsurgical pain. Psychooncology 2019;28: 2210-17. source
- Supportedcites [29] 29. Lotzke H, Brisby H, Gutke A, H ägg O, Jakobsson M, Smeets R, Lundberg M. A person-centered prehabilitation program based on cognitive- behavioral physical therapy for patients scheduled for lumbar fusion surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther 2019;99:1069-88. source
The citation identifies this trial as one of the studies evaluating both early and later outcomes. The Results table reports follow-ups at 3 and 8 weeks and at 3 and 6 months after surgery. The counts of studies are the citing authors’ synthesis, not a count attributed to this individual trial. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [32] 32. Monticone M, Ferrante S, Teli M, Rocca B, Foti C, Lovi A, Brayda Bruno M. Management of catastrophising and kinesiophobia improves rehabilitation after fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis and stenosis. A randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J 2014;23:87-95. source
The cited paper is one of the studies identified in the citing sentence. Its Blinding section reports assessments four weeks after treatment began and at a one-year follow-up, supporting its inclusion among studies evaluating both short-term and chronic outcomes. It does not itself establish the citing paper’s aggregate study counts. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [39] 39. Parker PA, Pettaway CA, Babaian RJ, Pisters LL, Miles B, Fortier A, Wei Q, Carr DD, Cohen L. The effects of a presurgical stress management intervention for men with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3169-76. source
The Results report both short-term assessments (1 week before surgery and the morning of surgery) and long-term assessments (6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery). This supports citing the paper as a study that evaluated both kinds of outcomes; the totals across studies are the citing paper’s synthesis, not a finding attributed to this individual study. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not matchedcites [44] 44. Rolving N, Nielsen CV, Christensen FB, Holm R, B ünger CE, Oestergaard LG. Does a preoperative cognitive-behavioral intervention affect disability, pain behavior, pain, and return to work the first year after lumbar spinal fusion surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40:593-600.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Most of the previous reviews have examined the effects of psychological interventions for specific types of interventions, such as orthopedic surgery, cardiac surgery, or abdominal surgery, 52,56,64,70 and/or limited the outcomes to the acute postoperative period.1,34,52,56”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.2. Comparison with other reviews
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [52] 52. Sorel JC, Overvliet GM, Gademan MGJ, den Haan C, Honig A, Poolman RW. The influence of perioperative interventions targeting psychological distress on clinical outcome after total knee arthroplasty. Rheumatol Int 2020;40:1961-86. source
This source supports the specific-surgery part of the citing sentence: its Methods > Search strategy and study selection limits the review to adults undergoing primary total knee replacement. The sentence cites this source among examples of reviews focused on particular surgeries, not for the separate claim about acute postoperative outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [56] 56. Szeverenyi C, Kekecs Z, Johnson A, Elkins G, Csernatony Z, Varga K. The use of adjunct psychosocial interventions can decrease postoperative pain and improve the quality of clinical care in orthopedic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Pain 2018;19:1231-52. source
- Supportedcites [64] 64. Villa G, Lanini I, Amass T, Bocciero V, Scir è Calabrisotto C, Chelazzi C, Romagnoli S, De Gaudio AR, Lauro Grotto R. Effects of psychological interventions on anxiety and pain in patients undergoing major elective abdominal surgery: a systematic review. Perioper Med (Lond) 2020;9:38. source
The title and Background identify this as a systematic review of psychological interventions for patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery. It therefore supports the sentence’s example of a review focused on a specific surgery type. The separate claim about outcomes limited to the acute postoperative period is attached to a different set of citations. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Partly supportedcites [70] 70. Ziehm S, Rosendahl J, Barth J, Strauss BM, Mehnert A, Koranyi S. Psychological interventions for acute pain after open heart surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;7:CD009984. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Objectives section confirms that this review focuses on adults undergoing open-heart surgery, supporting the specific-surgery part of the claim. But the Types of outcome measures section includes outcomes after discharge, so this review did not limit outcomes to the acute postoperative period. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] 1. Álvarez-García C, Yaban ZS ¸. The effects of preoperative guided imagery interventions on preoperative anxiety and postoperative pain: a meta- analysis. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2020;38:101077. source
- Not matchedcites [34] 34. Nelson EA. Systematic review of the efficacy of pre-surgical mind-body based therapies on post-operative outcome measures. Complement Ther Med 2013;21:697-711.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Most of the selection instruments that have been used are dimensional in nature and use relatively arbitrary cutoff scores to identify at-risk patients.63”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.3. Clinical implications and further research
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [63] 63. Veirman E, Van Ryckeghem DM, De Paepe A, Kirtley OJ, Crombez G. Multidimensional screening for predicting pain problems in adults: a systematic review of screening tools and validation studies. Pain Rep 2019;4:e775. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The review's methods discuss continuous outcome scales and how scales were selected for pain, disability, and distress (section labelled “5. ACT versus AC at T1 and T2; and”; page unavailable). Searches for dimensional selection instruments, cutoff scores, and screening for at-risk patients found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“These results underscore the possible benefits of integrating psychological services into multidisciplinary acute and transitional pain teams.27”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [27] 27. Katz J, Weinrib A, Fashler SR, Katznelzon R, Shah BR, Ladak SS, Jiang J, Li Q, McMillan K, Mina DS, Wentlandt K, McRae K, Tamir D, Lyn S, de Perrot M, Rao V, Grant D, Roche-Nagle G, Cleary SP, Hofer SO, Gilbert R, Wijeysundera D, Ritvo P, Janmohamed T, O'Leary G, Clarke H. The Toronto General Hospital Transitional Pain Service: development and implementation of a multidisciplinary program to prevent chronic postsurgical pain. J Pain Res 2015;8:695-702. source
The Introduction calls for a multidisciplinary preventive approach that includes psychological care, and the section on the psychological team describes a growing call to integrate psychological services early in postsurgical pain management. Together, these passages support the cited point about possible benefits; the citing authors’ reference to “these results” is their own framing. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, owing to a recent boost in research in the field, the current meta-analysis includes a substantial number of additional randomized controlled trials.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After excluding studies based on reasons listed in Figure 1, the final list of studies consisted of 21 studies (Table 1).”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.1. Study search results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Publication bias evaluated through the Egger's regression intercept did not show significant effects for studies evaluating (sub)acute pain outcomes (1-sided P value 5 0.25), chronic pain outcomes (1-sided P value 5 0.13), and chronic disability outcomes (1-sided P value 5 0.09), indicating no publication bias.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.3.1. Publication bias
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For pain outcomes, it should be mentioned that all studies assess this outcome through direct self-report measures.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.3. Clinical implications and further research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, although moderator analyses did not reach significance, results indicated that CBT-based interventions showed a significant treatment effect for all outcomes, which was not the case for other types of interventions that only showed a significant effect on chronic disability outcomes.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.3. Clinical implications and further research
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Finally, considering that intentionto-treat (ITT) data provide values for all participants randomized, only ITT data were assessed in studies that report both ITT analyses and per protocol or as treated data, 44,45 thus reducing bias due to selective drop out and patient exclusion.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 2.4. Data synthesis and analysis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [44] 44. Rolving N, Nielsen CV, Christensen FB, Holm R, B ünger CE, Oestergaard LG. Does a preoperative cognitive-behavioral intervention affect disability, pain behavior, pain, and return to work the first year after lumbar spinal fusion surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40:593-600.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [45] 45. Rolving N, Sogaard R, Nielsen CV, Christensen FB, B ünger C, Oestergaard LG. Preoperative cognitive-behavioral patient education versus standard care for lumbar spinal fusion patients: economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:18-25.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A previous systematic review by Nicholls et al. 36 included only 6 articles reporting data from 5 trials, whereby 2 examined early outcomes and 4 examined chronic outcomes.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nicholls et al., 36
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the ROB 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials by Cochrane Reviews.54”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 2.3. Risk of bias assessment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [54] 54. Sterne JAC, Savovi ć J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng H-Y, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hern án MA, Hopewell S, Hr óbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, J üni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“They concluded that psychological interventions significantly reduced CPSP and disability, whereas education was ineffective.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang et al., 65
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All analyses were performed according to the ad hoc protocol.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 2. Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding selection bias, we evaluated 60% of studies as having low ROB, 35% of studies as having some concerns due to missing protocols, and 5% of studies as having high ROB due to possible selective reporting from multiple eligible analyses.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.3. Risk of bias assessment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the first step, 2 reviewers independently screened all abstracts of studies for possible inclusions.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 2.1. Search strategy and inclusion or exclusion criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two studies (10%) were judged as having low ROB in this domain because these 2 studies did not have treatment as usual as a control group.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.3. Risk of bias assessment
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Authors concluded that there was preliminary evidence that CBT reduces CPSP and disability.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nicholls et al., 36
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, double blinding was not possible as the person delivering the intervention was always aware of the condition the participants was in.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.3. Risk of bias assessment
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To maintain independence of our data, whenever necessary, effect sizes were averaged across groups”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 2.4. Data synthesis and analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For bias from randomization procedure, 85% of studies showed low ROB, whereas 10% studies showed some concerns, and only 1 study (5%) was evaluated as having high ROB 18 due to an unclear block randomization procedure.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 3.3. Risk of bias assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] 18. Garssen B, Boomsma MF, de Jager Meezenbroek E, Porsild T, Berkhof J, Berbee M, Visser A, Meijer S, Beelen RHJ. Stress management training for breast cancer surgery patients: SMT for breast cancer surgery patients. Psychooncology 2013;22:572-80. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A metaanalysis of Wang et al. 65 included 8 trials evaluating the effects of psychological interventions (CBT, but also relaxation) and 7 trials evaluating the effects of educational interventions on CPSP.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang et al., 65
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline, 30 the protocol of the meta-analysis was registered at the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42020175806; March 2020).”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 2. Methods
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30] 30. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8:336-41.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it should be noted that when compared with an active control group, the effects of psychological interventions were only significant for chronic disability outcomes, and there were only 6 studies that evaluated the effects of psychological interventions in comparison to an active control group.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.1. Effect sizes and moderators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall effect sizes for the reduction in (sub)acute pain, disability, and chronic pain were small, whereas medium effect sizes were found for disability at chronic time points.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.1. Effect sizes and moderators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, regarding intervention provider, effect sizes were larger for all outcomes when the intervention was delivered by a psychologist, but the moderation effect only reached significance for (sub)acute disability outcomes.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.1. Effect sizes and moderators
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This meta-analysis demonstrated that perioperative psychological interventions had small to medium effects in reducing both (sub)acute and CPSP and disability, compared with a control group.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4. Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The review of Nicholls et al. 36 is similar to ours in that they evaluated the effects of psychological interventions across different types of surgeries and examined both (sub)acute and chronic pain and disability.However, their search only yielded 6 articles-1 examining acute postoperative outcomes and 5 examining chronic outcomes.No meta-analyses were performed.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.2. Comparison with other reviews
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nicholls et al. 36
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our updated and more extensive review confirms these early findings.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.2. Comparison with other reviews
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Inclusion of gray literature can reduce the risk of publication bias.38”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [38] 38. Paez A. Gray literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med 2017;10:233-40.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We were able to include 21 studies, making this the largest metaanalysis on the topic so far.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted that the small number of studies in some categories may have contributed to the lack of moderating effects.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.3. Clinical implications and further research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, because not all gray literature is peer reviewed, assessment of the validity of the results can be problematic.38”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [38] 38. Paez A. Gray literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med 2017;10:233-40.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our review identified not only substantially more articles but also articles examining a broader range of psychological interventions, suggesting that in recent years, studies have diversified and evaluated perioperative intervention methods other than CBT.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.2. Comparison with other reviews
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One reason may be the paucity of data on the appropriate selection criteria to decide whether a patient is at an increased risk for CPSP.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.3. Clinical implications and further research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A random-effects model was used to combine effect sizes; where more than 1 value used in the study, outcomes were averaged”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 5. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, there may be studies published in other languages that could be of importance for the current meta-analysis but were not included because they were not identified by our search terms.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, we conducted moderation analyses to identify factors that could potentially influence the effectiveness of perioperative psychological interventions.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“However, it should be noted that both hypnosis and guided imagery have been shown to have positive effects on pain reduction.1,57”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] 1. Álvarez-García C, Yaban ZS ¸. The effects of preoperative guided imagery interventions on preoperative anxiety and postoperative pain: a meta- analysis. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2020;38:101077. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [57] 57. Tefikow S, Barth J, Maichrowitz S, Beelmann A, Strauss B, Rosendahl J. Efficacy of hypnosis in adults undergoing surgery or medical procedures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Psychol Rev 2013; 33:623-36. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current review and meta-analyses of 21 studies shows that psychological interventions can be effective in reducing (sub) acute postsurgical pain and CPSP and disability.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 5. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also contacted authors to obtain data that could not be retrieved from their articles but were necessary to conduct the meta-analyses.Owing to the high response rate, we were able to include all eligible articles in the analyses.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, despite various studies assessing the efficacy of interventions such as hypnosis, guided imagery, and relaxation, we decided to exclude these studies because these interventions do not target emotion and cognition directly or consciously.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A random-effects model was used to combine effect sizes; where more than 1 value used in the study, outcomes were averaged”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 5. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our meta-analyses show that perioperative psychological interventions can decrease pain and disability in the early postoperative period (ie, up to 3 months after surgery) and the late postoperative period (ie, more than 3 months after surgery) after different types of surgery.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.3. Clinical implications and further research
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, our determination of what constitutes a psychological intervention was restricted to the descriptions listed in the study.In several cases, we had to contact study authors to determine whether an intervention contained enough psychological elements, but even so, our assessment remains subjective.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Their results showed that educational interventions were not effective, whereas moderate quality evidence indicated that psychological interventions reduced CPSP and disability.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.2. Comparison with other reviews
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang et al. 65
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Cochran Q and I 2 values are reported as an indices of heterogeneity(Borenstein et al., 2009).”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Borenstein et al., 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Only 3 of the 8 articles included in their article met the inclusion criteria for our review; most were excluded based on insufficient psychological content or because they were delivered too long after surgery.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.2. Comparison with other reviews
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang et al. 65
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, not all planned moderator analyses could be conducted because for some outcomes too few studies were available per moderator category.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, our search strategy only included English search terms in English language databases.As such, the search performed in the current meta-analysis does not include potentially relevant articles that contained no English keywords or an English abstract.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to systematically searching the literature, we also contacted experts in the field to ascertain that no articles were missed.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.4. Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Active control groups are assumed to account better than treatment-as-usual control groups for nonspecific treatment effects such as attention or expectancy.
“Active control groups are assumed to better account for nonspecific treatment effects such as attention or expectancy than treatment as usual control groups.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Preoperative emotional and cognitive factors are known risk factors for unfavorable outcomes.
“Because preoperative emotional and cognitive factors are known risk factors for unfavorable outcomes, we had expected that interventions directed at patients selected for the presence of these risk factors would be most effective.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Double blinding is not possible in psychological intervention studies.
“Because double blinding is not possible in psychological intervention studies, most studies had concerns regarding bias in the measurement of the outcome.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In addition, the exact number of sessions and the adequate time to obtain improvement is unknown [56].”
From Effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for the Management of Postsurgical Pain: Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial (SPINE-ACT Study) (2023) · cites this paper as [56]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This focus on pre- and postoperative timing is supported by a recent systematic review on perioperative psychological interventions that found that interventions (also) delivered after surgery tended to be more effective for postsurgical pain and disability than interventions delivered (only) before surgery [77].”
From Benefits, Recruitment, Dropout, and Acceptability of the Strength Back Digital Health Intervention for Patients Undergoing Spinal Surgery: Nonrandomized, Qualitative, and Quantitative Pilot Feasibility Study (2024) · cites this paper as [77]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“At present, for our current protocol, in the context of the heterogeneity of the applications of perioperative psychological therapies in the studies published to date, it is not clear if patients who are candidates for surgery can benefit more from psychotherapeutic interventions in the preoperative period, in the postoperative period, or combined.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 1. Introduction
“A previous systematic review by Nicholls et al. 36 included only 6 articles reporting data from 5 trials, whereby 2 examined early outcomes and 4 examined chronic outcomes.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.2. Comparison with other reviews
“However, their search only yielded 6 articles-1 examining acute postoperative outcomes and 5 examining chronic outcomes.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 2.2. Data extraction and coding decisions
“(sub)acute outcomes are defined as outcomes measured less than 3 months after surgery, and chronic or persistent outcomes as outcomes measured at least 3 months after surgery.”
§ Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Can perioperative psychological interventions decrease the risk of postsurgical pain and disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials > 4.3. Clinical implications and further research
“the early postoperative period (ie, up to 3 months after surgery) and the late postoperative period (ie, more than 3 months after surgery)”
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
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) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Sterne, J. A. C., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., Cates, C. J., Cheng, H.-Y., Corbett, M. S., Eldridge, S. M., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 · Cited by 34,787
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 · Cited by 12,156
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., Harbord, R. M., Schmid, C. H., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002 · Cited by 7,709
How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026
Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults
Williams, A. C. D. C., Eccleston, C., & Morley, S. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007407.pub3 · Cited by 1,634
Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews
Paez, A. (2017) · Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1111/jebm.12266 · Cited by 1,459
Predictors of Postoperative Pain and Analgesic Consumption: A Qualitative Systematic Review
Ip, H. Y. V., Abrishami, A., Peng, P. W. H., Wong, J., & Chung, F. (2009) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e3181aae87a · Cited by 1,055
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Niklasson, A., Finan, P., Smith, M. T., Forsberg, A., Dietz, N., Kander, T., Werner, M. U., Irwin, M. R., Kosek, E., & Bjurström, M. F. (2024) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2024.102014 · Cited by 42
O'Connell, N. E., Moore, A., Stewart, G. B., Fisher, E., Hearn, L., Eccleston, C., Wewege, M. A., & Williams, A. C. D. C. (2023) · Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2023.07.003 · Cited by 28
Prognostic clinical prediction models for acute post‐surgical pain in adults: a systematic review
Papadomanolakis‐Pakis, N., Munch, P. V., Carlé, N., Uhrbrand, C. G., Haroutounian, S., & Nikolajsen, L. (2024) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/anae.16429 · Cited by 32
Scarone, P., Van Santbrink, W., Koetsier, E., Smeets, A., Van Santbrink, H., & Peters, M. L. (2023) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-022-07426-1 · Cited by 20
Self-citationFactors predicting outcomes from chronic pain management interventions
Cohen, S. P., Wang, E. J., Roybal, A., & Chen, Y. (2025) · BMJ Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjmed-2024-001143 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Nadinda, P. G., van Ryckeghem, D. M. L., & Peters, M. L.
- Affiliations
- Leiden University (NL)
- Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Nadinda, Putu G.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2021-10-26
- Volume
- 163
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1254-1273
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- 1872-6623
- OpenAlex
- W3209618186
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6
- FWCI
- 1.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (publishedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Pain Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Keywords
- postoperative pain, chronic postoperative pain, disability, psychological factors in pain, postoperative care, intervention timing
- MeSH terms
- Psychosocial Intervention, Adult, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Postoperative Pain, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
