Cited by 295Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Placebo EffectPain Management and Treatment

Pain Catastrophizing: An Updated Review

Open access
Leung, Lawrence·2012·Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Pain catastrophizing has been described for more than half a century which adversely affects the pain coping behavior and overall prognosis in susceptible individuals when challenged by painful conditions. It is a distinct phenomenon which is characterized by feelings of helplessness, active rumination and excessive magnification of cognitions and feelings toward the painful situation. Susceptible subjects may have certain demographic or psychological predisposition. Various models of pain catastrophizing have been proposed which include attention-bias, schema-activation, communal-coping and appraisal models. Nevertheless, consensus is still lacking as to the true nature and mechanisms for pain catastrophizing. Recent advances in population genomics and noninvasive neuroimaging have helped elucidate the known determinants and neurophysiological correlates behind this potentially disabling behavior.

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 · 10.4103/0253-7176.106012

Cites

131 of 132 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?

  • Pain catastrophizing has been shown to be a positive predictor of pain-related disability, self-efficacy in relation to managing pain, difficulties processing pain-related beliefs and emotions.

    “Pain catastrophizing has been shown to be a positive predictor of pain-related disability, self-efficacy in relation to managing pain, difficulties processing pain-related beliefs and emotions.40,41”

    From Psychological interventions for women with persistent pelvic pain: A survey of mental health clinicians (2021) · cites this paper as [40]

    The ‘Pain Catastrophizing and Physical Disability’ section (page unavailable) says that higher catastrophizing predicts continued disability. The retrieved passages discuss coping, beliefs and emotions, but do not establish that catastrophizing positively predicts self-efficacy in managing pain or difficulties processing pain-related beliefs and emotions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Catastrophizing has been shown to moderate pain intensity and pain medication use in chronic pain groups.

    “Catastrophizing has been shown to moderate pain intensity and pain medication use in chronic pain groups.40”

    From Psychological interventions for women with persistent pelvic pain: A survey of mental health clinicians (2021) · cites this paper as [40]

    The section “Measuring Pain Catastrophizing: Situational or Dispositional?” reports that situational catastrophizing scores predict higher pain ratings in groups that include people with chronic pain. Our copy does not report that catastrophizing moderates pain medication use; searches for medication and analgesic use found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Pain catastrophizing is consistently elevated in women with persistent breast pain.

    “pain catastrophizing (magnification, helplessness, and rumination about pain) have consistently been found to be elevated in the women with PBP [4, 6, 18, 19].”

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. [2]Beck AT Cognitive therapy of depression 1979 New York Guilford Press 425
  2. [17]Garcia Campayo J Rodero B Alda M Sobradiel N Montero J Moreno S Validation of the Spanish version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in fibromyalgia Med Clin (Barc) 2008 131 487 92 Epub 2008/11/15. PubMed PMID: 19007576 19007576

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leung, L.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Leung, Lawrence
Venue
Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine
Published
2012-07
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
204-217
ISSN
  • 0253-7176 (ISSN-L)
  • 0975-1564
OpenAlex
W1971725751
Cited by
295
References
129
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, pain coping, helplessness, rumination, attentional bias, schema activation, communal coping, evaluation model, neuroimaging, population genomics

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