Cited by 48Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Placebo EffectPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Are patient expectations associated with treatment outcomes in individuals with chronic low back pain? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Open access
Mohamed Mohamed, Walid Jumma, Joseph, Leonard, Canby, Guy, Paungmali, Aatit, Sitilertpisan, Patraporn, Pirunsan, Ubon·2020·International Journal of Clinical Practice

Abstract

AIM: The importance of patient expectations (PEs) on treatment outcomes is poorly understood in clinical practice. The aim of this review is to investigate the evidence behind association between pre-treatment PEs and treatment outcomes such as pain intensity (PI), level of function (LF) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for randomised controlled trials published between 1946 and May 2019 across major databases using the key MeSH terminologies. The association between PEs and PI, LF and HRQoL were extracted and categorised into positive, negative or no association for analysing the data. A descriptive synthesis was conducted and the association between PEs and PI, LF and HRQoL were reported. RESULTS: Among the total of seven trials, two trials demonstrated a positive association between PEs and PI in short (≤6 weeks) and long term (>6 months), while another two trials demonstrated no association at medium term (>6 weeks-≤6 months). About four trials demonstrated a positive significant association between PEs and LF, 2 at medium and 2 at long terms. The only available trial demonstrated no association between PEs and HRQoL at medium term. CONCLUSION: PEs is associated with PI at short and long terms. Also, evidence suggests association between PEs and LF at medium and long terms. Currently, there is no evidence of association between PEs and HRQoL. Further studies with valid tools to measure PE are warranted among individuals with CLBP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ijcp.13680

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mohamed Mohamed, W. J., Joseph, L., Canby, G., Paungmali, A., Sitilertpisan, P., & Pirunsan, U.
Affiliations
  • School of Health Science University of Brighton East Sussex UK
  • University of Brighton (GB)
  • Chiang Mai University (TH)
Corresponding author
Joseph, Leonard
Venue
International Journal of Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-09-07
Volume
74
Issue
11
Pages
e13680-e13680
ISSN
  • 1368-5031 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-1241
OpenAlex
W3082311850
Cited by
48
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Clinical Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
patient expectations, chronic low back pain, treatment outcomes, pain intensity, functional level, health-related quality of life, placebo effect
MeSH terms
Humans, Motivation, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Low Back Pain, Chronic Pain

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