MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118585812 · doi:10.36076/ppj.2021.24.61-72

Mind-Body Interventions for Depressive Symptoms in Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses

2020· review· en· W3118585812 on OpenAlexafffund
Abhimanyu Sud, Darren K. Cheng, Chadwick Chung, Oscar Javier Pico-Espinosa, Danielle B. Rice

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Physician · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteWestern UniversityBridgepoint Active HealthcareMcGill UniversityCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoMedical Psychiatry Alliance
KeywordsPsycINFOMedicinePsychological interventionCINAHLMeta-analysisSystematic reviewMEDLINEDepression (economics)Physical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Psychological comorbidities in chronic pain (CP) are common and contribute to adverse health outcomes and poor quality of life. Evidence-based guidance for the management of depressive symptoms in CP is limited, particularly for mind-body interventions. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of mind-body interventions for the management of depressive symptoms in people with CP. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review (SR) of SRs. SETTING: SRs with meta-analyses of clinical interventions for the management of depressive symptoms in people with CP. METHODS: This SR was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic searches were performed for MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports from inception to March 14, 2019. Reference lists and overviews were also hand-searched. SRs of mind-body interventions for CP were included if they conducted a meta-analysis of depression outcomes in people with any CP type not including headache. Two independent reviewers screened, extracted, and evaluated the quality of articles found. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 criteria and data were summarized narratively with standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals of the depression outcome. RESULTS: Eleven SRs with 20 distinct meta-analyses demonstrated a small to moderate beneficial effect for mind-body interventions (effect sizes: -0.05 to -0.63). LIMITATIONS: Depressive symptomatology was a subordinate concern compared with other outcomes. The primary literature base was reasonably broad with 33 primary studies, but small when compared with the number of meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Mind-body interventions show consistent small to moderate effects in reducing depressive symptoms in CP. The literature in this area demonstrates understudy and oversynthesis. There is a need for more clinical trials focusing on people with axial pain, people with comorbid major depressive disorder, and with depression as the primary outcome of interest. Full SR registered on PROSPERO: CRD42019131871.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain PhysicianSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207