CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 315Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchBone fractures and treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychological Factors Predict Disability and Pain Intensity After Skeletal Trauma

Vranceanu, Ana-Maria, Bachoura, Abdo, Weening, Alexander, Vrahas, Mark, Smith, R. Malcolm, Ring, David·2014·Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
DOI 10.2106/jbjs.l.00479
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The aims of this study were to (1) estimate the prevalence of clinical depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) one to two months (Time 1) and five to eight months (Time 2) after musculoskeletal trauma and (2) determine the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship of psychological variables (depression, PTSD, catastrophic thinking, and pain anxiety) at Time 1 to musculoskeletal disability and pain intensity at Time 1 and Time 2, after accounting for injury characteristics and demographic variables. Methods: Patients with one or more fractures that had been treated operatively completed measures of depression, PTSD, pain anxiety, catastrophic thinking, musculoskeletal disability (the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment [SMFA]), and pain (the Numerical Rating Scale) at rest and during activity at Time 1 (152 patients) and at Time 2 (136 patients). Additional explanatory variables included injury severity, use of opioid pain medication at Time 1, and multiple or single injuries. Results: The screening criteria for an estimated diagnosis of clinical depression were met by thirty-five of the 152 patients at Time 1, and twenty-nine of the 136 patients at Time 2. Screening criteria for an estimated diagnosis of PTSD were met by forty-three of the 152 patients at Time 1 and twenty-five of the 136 patients at Time 2. Cross-sectional hierarchical linear regression models that included multiple injuries, scores of the Abbreviated Injury Scale, and self-reported opioid use explained between 24% and 29% of the variance in pain and disability, respectively, at Time 1. After the addition of psychological variables, the model explained between 49% and 55% of the variance. Catastrophic thinking (as measured with use of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale) at Time 1 was the sole significant predictor of pain at rest, pain during activity, and disability (as measured with use of the SMFA) at Time 2. Conclusions: We found that psychological factors that are responsive to cognitive behavioral therapy—catastrophic thinking, in particular—are strongly associated with pain intensity and disability in patients recovering from musculoskeletal trauma. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Peer Review: This article was reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and one Deputy Editor, and it underwent blinded review by two or more outside experts. It was also reviewed by an expert in methodology and statistics. The Deputy Editor reviewed each revision of the article, and it underwent a final review by the Editor-in-Chief prior to publication. Final corrections and clarifications occurred during one or more exchanges between the author(s) and copyeditors.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2106/jbjs.l.00479

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2003 Jun 18, National Comorbidity Survey Replication, JAMA, 289, 3095

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–314 of 314

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Vranceanu, A.-M., Bachoura, A., Weening, A., Vrahas, M., Smith, R. M., & Ring, D.
Affiliations
Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2014-02-05
Volume
96
Issue
3
Pages
e20
ISSN
  • 0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-1386
DOI
10.2106/jbjs.l.00479
OpenAlex
W2032527834
Cited by
315
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 9
FWCI
18.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone fractures and treatments
Keywords
musculoskeletal injuries, fracture, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, catastrophic thinking, pain-related anxiety, pain intensity, musculoskeletal impairment, psychological factors, cognitive behavioral therapy, opioid use, injury severity, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment, pain catastrophizing, postoperative recovery, prognostic factors, polytrauma, Abbreviated Injury Scale, cognitive appraisal of pain
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Analgesics, Opioid, Anxiety, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depressive Disorder, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Musculoskeletal System, Pain Measurement, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Wounds and Injuries, 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