Intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment for children and adolescents with chronic noncancer pain: a preregistered systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Chronic noncancer pain in children and adolescents can be impairing and results in substantial health care costs. Intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment (IIPT), an inpatient or day hospital treatment delivered by a team of 3 or more health professionals, may be an effective intervention for these children and adolescents. Based on previous reviews and meta-analyses, we updated findings regarding the description of available treatments and estimated the effectiveness of IIPT, overcoming methodological shortcomings of previous work by requesting and analyzing individual participant data. On June 26, 2021, we searched 5 literature databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubPsych) for studies examining the effectiveness of IIPT. Included studies used a pre-post design, assessed patients younger than 22 years, and presented their results in English, German, French, or Spanish. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to pool treatment effects and assess risk of bias. We identified 13 different treatment sites with similar treatment inclusion criteria and treatment components, but the descriptions of those treatments varied widely. Regarding treatment effectiveness, IIPT may result in large improvements in the mean pain intensity ( g = -1.28), disability ( g = -1.91), and number of missed school days at the 12-month follow-up ( g = -0.99), as well as moderate improvements in anxiety ( g = -0.77) and depression ( g = -0.76). The certainty of the evidence, however, was graded from very low to low. We recommend that future researchers use more scientific rigor to increase the certainty of the evidence for IIPT and standardize treatment outcomes for children and adolescents with chronic pain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".