Sex differences in the efficacy of psychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex differences in chronic pain are reported to emerge during adolescence, although it is unclear if this includes responses to treatment. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine whether sex differences were present on outcome variables at pre-treatment, and whether the efficacy of psychological therapies for pediatric chronic pain differs between boys and girls at post-treatment and follow-up time points. Searches were conducted, extending two existing Cochrane reviews of randomized-controlled trials examining the efficacy of psychological therapies for chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents. Forty-six articles were eligible for inclusion, and data were extracted regarding pain, disability, anxiety, and depression in boys and girls at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and follow-up time points. No published study reported outcome data separately by sex, so authors of all studies were contacted and 17 studies provided data. Twice as many girls (n =1760) were enrolled into clinical trials of psychological therapies for pediatric chronic pain than boys (n = 828). Girls reported higher depression and anxiety at pre-treatment than boys. Girls with headache also reported significantly greater pre-treatment pain severity. Treatment gains were consistent across the sexes. One exception was for post-treatment disability in children with non-headache pain conditions; girls exhibited a significant effect of treatment relative to control condition (SMD= -0.50[-0.80,-0.20], p < .01), but no such effect was observed for boys (SMD= -0.08[-0.44,0.28], p = .66). Future research should examine whether mechanisms of treatment efficacy differ between boys and girls, and consider the impact of pre-treatment sex differences on response to treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".