The efficacy of mindfulness based interventions in acute pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shires, A; Sharpe, L; Davies, J; NewtonJohn, T

The efficacy of mindfulness based interventions in acute pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shires, A

Sharpe, L Davies, J NewtonJohn, T

Permalink

Publisher:: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Pain, 2020, 161, (8), pp. 1698-1707
Issue Date:: 2020-05-31

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	00006396-202008000-00004.pdf	Published version	742.4 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Shires, A https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8153-1126
dc.contributor.author	Sharpe, L
dc.contributor.author	Davies, J
dc.contributor.author	NewtonJohn, T
dc.date.accessioned	2020-09-24T06:06:31Z
dc.date.available	2020-09-24T06:06:31Z
dc.date.issued	2020-05-31
dc.identifier.citation	Pain, 2020, 161, (8), pp. 1698-1707
dc.identifier.issn	0304-3959
dc.identifier.issn	1872-6623
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/142853
dc.description.abstract	Recent meta-analyses have shown MBIs to be effective for chronic pain, but no pooled estimates of the effect of MBIs on acute pain are available. This meta-analysis was conducted to fill that gap. A literature search was conducted in four databases. Articles were eligible if they reported on randomized controlled trials of MBIs for people with acute pain and included one of the following outcomes: pain severity, pain threshold, pain tolerance or pain-related distress. Two authors independently extracted the data, assessed risk of bias and provided GRADE ratings. Twenty-two studies were included. There was no evidence of an effect of MBIs on the primary outcome of pain severity in clinical (Hedge's g=0.52; [95%CI -0.241, 1.280]) or experimental settings (Hedge's g= 0.043; 95%CI [-0.161, 0.247]). There was a beneficial effect of MBIs on pain tolerance (Hedge's g=0.68; 95%CI [0.157, 1.282]) and pain threshold (Hedge's g=0.72; 95%CI [0.210, 1.154]) in experimental studies. There was no evidence of an effect of MBIs compared to control for pain-related distress in clinical (Hedge's g=0.159; 95%CI [-0.018, 0.419]) or experimental settings (Hedge's g=0.439; 95%CI [-0.164, 0.419]). GRADE assessment indicated that except for pain tolerance, the data were of low or very low quality. There is moderate evidence that MBIs are efficacious in increasing pain tolerance and weak evidence for pain threshold. However, there is an absence of good quality evidence for the efficacy of MBIs for reducing the pain severity or pain-related distress in either clinical or experimental settings.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
dc.relation.ispartof	Pain
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001877
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	11 Medical and Health Sciences, 17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
dc.subject.classification	Anesthesiology
dc.title	The efficacy of mindfulness based interventions in acute pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	161
utslib.location.activity	United States
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences
utslib.for	17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health/GSH.Clinical Psychology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHT - Health Technologies
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2020-09-24T06:06:27Z
pubs.issue	8
pubs.publication-status	Accepted
pubs.volume	161
utslib.citation.issue	8

Abstract:

Recent meta-analyses have shown MBIs to be effective for chronic pain, but no pooled estimates of the effect of MBIs on acute pain are available. This meta-analysis was conducted to fill that gap. A literature search was conducted in four databases. Articles were eligible if they reported on randomized controlled trials of MBIs for people with acute pain and included one of the following outcomes: pain severity, pain threshold, pain tolerance or pain-related distress. Two authors independently extracted the data, assessed risk of bias and provided GRADE ratings. Twenty-two studies were included. There was no evidence of an effect of MBIs on the primary outcome of pain severity in clinical (Hedge's g=0.52; [95%CI -0.241, 1.280]) or experimental settings (Hedge's g= 0.043; 95%CI [-0.161, 0.247]). There was a beneficial effect of MBIs on pain tolerance (Hedge's g=0.68; 95%CI [0.157, 1.282]) and pain threshold (Hedge's g=0.72; 95%CI [0.210, 1.154]) in experimental studies. There was no evidence of an effect of MBIs compared to control for pain-related distress in clinical (Hedge's g=0.159; 95%CI [-0.018, 0.419]) or experimental settings (Hedge's g=0.439; 95%CI [-0.164, 0.419]). GRADE assessment indicated that except for pain tolerance, the data were of low or very low quality. There is moderate evidence that MBIs are efficacious in increasing pain tolerance and weak evidence for pain threshold. However, there is an absence of good quality evidence for the efficacy of MBIs for reducing the pain severity or pain-related distress in either clinical or experimental settings.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/142853