Cited by 1,405Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Placebo EffectPediatric Pain Management Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 114 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pain catastrophizing: a critical review.

Open access
Quartana, Phillip J, Campbell, Claudia M, Edwards, Robert R·2009·Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics

Abstract

Pain catastrophizing is conceptualized as a negative cognitive-affective response to anticipated or actual pain and has been associated with a number of important pain-related outcomes. In the present review, we first focus our efforts on the conceptualization of pain catastrophizing, highlighting its conceptual history and potential problem areas. We then focus our discussion on a number of theoretical mechanisms of action: appraisal theory, attention bias/information processing, communal coping, CNS pain processing mechanisms, psychophysiological pathways and neural pathways. We then offer evidence to suggest that pain catastrophizing represents an important process factor in pain treatment. We conclude by offering what we believe represents an integrated heuristic model for use by researchers over the next 5 years; a model we believe will advance the field most expediently.

Overview

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 · 10.1586/ern.09.34

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 111 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Beck AT Rush AJ Shaw BF Emery G. Cognitive Therapy of Depression. Guilford Press NY USA (1979).
  2. 10.1016/j.pain.2008.07.024 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,003

Metadata

Authors
Quartana, P. J., Campbell, C. M., & Edwards, R. R.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics
Published
2009-05
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
745-758
ISSN
  • 1473-7175 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-8360
OpenAlex
W2122400634
Cited by
1,405
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 111 · 2025: 123 · 2024: 120 · 2023: 121 · 2022: 111 · 2021: 136 · 2020: 112 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 86 · 2016: 79 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 28
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (7k23ar051315-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH075884)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (F32NS063624)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K23-AR051315)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, appraisal theory, attentional bias, information processing, communal coping, central sensitization, neural pathways, pain management, heuristic model
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Attitude to Health, Humans, 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