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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
“The Fear-Avoidance Model (FAM)65–71 describes core cognitive–behavioural processes, including pain catastrophising, pain-related fear, pain hypervigilance and pain avoidance, which contribute to the transition from acute to persistent pain, including maintaining and exacerbating processes.”
From Optimising psychological treatment for pain after breast cancer: a factorial design study protocol in Denmark (2023) · cites this paper as [70]
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
“a construct previously linked to pain intensity, depressive symptoms, disability, and delayed recovery in patients with chronic pain [56,57].”
From The bed nucleus of the stria terminalis as a brain correlate of psychological inflexibility in fibromyalgia (2020) · cites this paper as [57]
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
“Similarly, people with persistent pain often catastrophise. This is seen as exaggerated negative thoughts and feelings in response to actual or anticipated pain.10”
From Protocol for a feasibility and acceptability study using a brief ACT-based intervention for people from Southwest Wales who live with persistent pain (2018) · cites this paper as [10]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“pain acceptance addresses: (1) pain catastrophizing, which is an exaggerated cognitive or emotional response to actual or anticipated pain [51-53], and (2) kinesiophobia, which is the avoidance of activities or movements due to excessive anxiety that it will cause pain or injury [54].”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, catastrophizing has been linked to increased hypervigilance and heightened activity in brain regions involved in threat detection and affective processing.45,46”
From Acceptance and commitment therapy for prevention of chronic pain after total knee arthroplasty. (2026) · cites this paper as [46]
In the citing paper
“Studies in patients with musculoskeletal pain have indicated that catastrophizing is the single most important pre-treatment risk factor that impairs the effectiveness of pain-relieving interventions 300, 301”
From Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as [300]
In the citing paper
“Catastrophizing also impacts treatment effectiveness for pain-relieving interventions 300, 301, 309, including surgery310–312.”
From Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as [300]
In the citing paper
“Of all the cognitive and psychological covariates commonly measured in experimental and clinical pain studies, pain catastrophizing (24) is repeatedly identified as the one robust measure associated with indices of pain sensitivity, clinical outcomes, and behavioral expressions of pain (25).”
In the citing paper
“As the pain catastrophizing scale is valid and relevant for both patients and healthy controls (referring to any pain experienced rather than to pelvic pain specifically), acceptable to patients/controls, and comprises of only 13 questions”
In the citing paper
“Although pain catastrophizing is considered a trait measure (25) and thus should not be influenced by the preceding questions”
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
“Stress: appraisal and coping,”
Folkman, S. (2013) · Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215 · Cited by 27,833
Pain mechanisms: a new theory.
Melzack, R., & Wall, P. D. (1965) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.150.3699.971 · Cited by 11,108
Cognitive Therapy for Depression
(2012) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e675542012-001 · Cited by 9,678
The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation.
Sullivan, M. J. L., Bishop, S. R., & Pivik, J. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.7.4.524 · Cited by 8,227
(1962) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,856
The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: Scientific advances and future directions.
Gatchel, R. J., Peng, Y. B., Peters, M. L., Fuchs, P. N., & Turk, D. C. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.581 · Cited by 3,392
Melzack, R., & Wall, P. D. (1996) · Pain Forum · doi:10.1016/s1082-3174(96)80062-6 · Cited by 2,786
Theoretical perspectives on the relation between catastrophizing and pain
Sullivan, M. J. L., Thorn, B., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Keefe, F., Martin, M., Bradley, L. A., & Lefebvre, J. C. (2001) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/00002508-200103000-00008 · Cited by 2,472
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984) · Cited by 2,358
Rosenstiel, A. K., & Keefe, F. J. (1983) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(83)90125-2 · Cited by 2,314
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Beck AT Rush AJ Shaw BF Emery G. Cognitive Therapy of Depression. Guilford Press NY USA (1979).
- 10.1016/j.pain.2008.07.024 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The role of psychosocial processes in the development and maintenance of chronic pain
Edwards, R. R., Dworkin, R. H., Sullivan, M. D., Turk, D. C., & Wasan, A. D. (2016) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2016.01.001 · Cited by 954
Self-citationEhde, D. M., Dillworth, T. M., & Turner, J. A. (2014) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0035747 · Cited by 879
Pain and emotion: a biopsychosocial review of recent research
Lumley, M. A., Cohen, J. L., Borszcz, G. S., Cano, A., Radcliffe, A. M., Porter, L. S., Schubiner, H., & Keefe, F. J. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1002/jclp.20816 · Cited by 836
Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes
Meints, S. M., & Edwards, R. R. (2018) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2018.01.017 · Cited by 719
Self-citationTheunissen, M., Peters, M. L., Bruce, J., Gramke, H.-F., & Marcus, M. A. (2012) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/ajp.0b013e31824549d6 · Cited by 659
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 745-758
- ISSN
- 1473-7175 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-8360
- PMC
- PMC2696024
- OpenAlex
- W2122400634
- Semantic Scholar
- 3bcf1a3b337d6163857552d6bc2e7278da5f2459
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
