Cited by 72Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Treatment

Pain catastrophizing predicts poor response to topical analgesics in patients with neuropathic pain

Open access
Mankovsky, Tsipora, Lynch, Mary E, Clark, AJ, Sawynok, J, Sullivan, Michael JL·2012·Pain Research and Management

Abstract

The prevalence of neuropathic pain approaches 10% in Canada and the United States. Given the aging population and the increasing survival rates following interventions for neuropathic pain, the prevalence of neuropathic pain conditions is expected to rise significantly over the next 20 years. Although pharmacological interventions represent the dominant treatment approach for neuropathic pain, as many as 50% of patients are partially or completely refractory to the available treatments. Pain catastrophizing has been associated with heightened pain experiences in patients with neuropathic pain conditions; however, the clinical relevance of the relationship between catastrophizing and poor treatment outcomes is, to date, unclear. Accordingly, using a numerical rating scale, this study aimed to examine this relationship in patients with varied neuropathic pain conditions who completed a measure of catastrophizing before initiating a course of topical analgesic. BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that high levels of pain catastrophizing might predict poorer response to pharmacological interventions for neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVE: The present study sought to examine the clinical relevance of the relation between catastrophizing and analgesic response in individuals with neuropathic pain. Clinically meaningful reductions were defined in terms of the magnitude of reductions in pain through the course of treatment, and in terms of the number of patients whose end‐of‐treatment pain ratings were below 4/10. METHODS: Patients (n=82) with neuropathic pain conditions completed a measure of pain catastrophizing at the beginning of a three‐week trial examining the efficacy of topical analgesics for neuropathic pain. RESULTS: Consistent with previous research, high scores on the measure of pain catastrophizing prospectively predicted poorer response to treatment. Fewer catastrophizers than noncatastrophizers showed moderate (≥2 points) or substantial reductions in pain ratings through the course of treatment. Fewer catastrophizers than noncatastrophizers achieved end‐of‐treatment pain ratings below 4/10. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that the development of brief interventions specifically targeting catastrophic thinking might be useful for enhancing the effects of pharmacological interventions for neuropathic pain. Furthermore, failure to account for the level of catastrophizing might contribute to null findings in clinical trials of analgesic medication.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2012/970423

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Sullivan MJL, Lynch ME, Clark AJ, Mankovsky T, Sawynok J. Catastrophizing and treatment outcome: Impact on response to placebo and active treatment outcome. Contemporary Hypnosis 2008;29:129-40.
  2. Adams H, Ellis T, Stanish WD, Sullivan MJ. Psychosocial factors related to return to work following rehabilitation of whiplash injuries. J Occup Rehabil 2007;17:305-15.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mankovsky, T., Lynch, M. E., Clark, A., Sawynok, J., & Sullivan, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • Calgary Health Region (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Sullivan, Michael JL
Venue
Pain Research and Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
10-14
ISSN
  • 1203-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1918-1523
OpenAlex
W5793289
Cited by
72
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pain Research and Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  • EpiCept Corporation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, neuropathic pain, topical analgesics, treatment response prediction, analgesic efficacy, pain intensity, catastrophic thinking, brief intervention
MeSH terms
Administration, Topical, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Analgesics, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuralgia, Pain Measurement, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Logistic Models, Young Adult, Catastrophization

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