Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults

56 Psychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents: Cochrane sy...

1 / 67

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain inchildren and adolescents: Cochrane systematic reviewReview information

Review number: 56AuthorsChristopher Eccleston1, Tonya M Palermo2, Amanda C de C Williams3, Amy Lewandowski4, Stephen Morley5, EmmaFisher6, Emily Law7

1Centre for Pain Research, The University of Bath, Bath, UK2Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA3Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK4Division of Psychology, Children's Hospital Boston, Boston, MA, USA5Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK6Department of Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK7Child Health, Behaviour & Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USACitation example: Eccleston C, Palermo TM, Williams AC de C, Lewandowski A, Morley S, Fisher E, Law E.Psychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents. CochraneDatabase of Systematic Reviews 2009 , Issue 2 . Art. No.: CD003968. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003968.pub2 .

Contact personChristopher EcclestonCo-ordinating EditorCentre for Pain ResearchThe University of BathClaverton DownBathBA2 7AYUK

E-mail: [email protected] 2: [email protected]

DatesAssessed as Up-to-date:12 November 2012Date of Search: 26 March 2012Next Stage Expected: 24 October 2014Protocol First Published: Issue 1 , 2003Review First Published: Issue 1 , 2003Last Citation Issue: Issue 2 , 2009

What's new


2 / 67

Date Event Description24 October 2012 Updated New authors have been added to this review. A new search

was run in March 2012. Eight new studies were added (Barakat 2010; Kashikar-Zuck 2012; Levy 2010; Palermo2009; Stinson 2010; Trautmann 2010; van Tilburg 2009;Wicksell 2009), and four new studies were excluded (Trautmann 2008; Vlieger 2012; Weydert 2006; Youssef2009).

24 October 2012 New citation: conclusions changed The previous review reported psychological treatments wereeffective for headache and non-headache groups at post-treatment and effects were maintained at follow-up. Updatedstudies have altered previous results. The current updatefound pain improved at post-treatment for headache andnon-headache groups, and for headache groups at follow-up. An additional significant finding for disability at post-treatment for the non-headache group was found.Conclusions have been updated accordingly.

HistoryDate Event Description16 May 2008 Amended Converted to new review format.

AbstractBackgroundChronic pain affects many children, who report severe pain, distressed mood, and disability. Psychological therapies areemerging as effective interventions to treat children with chronic or recurrent pain. This update adds recently publishedrandomised controlled trials (RCTs) to the review published in 2009.

ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of psychological therapies, principally cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural therapy, forreducing pain, disability, and improving mood in children and adolescents with recurrent, episodic, or persistent pain. Wealso assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies.

Search methodsSearches were undertaken of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycLIT. We searched for RCTs in references of all identifiedstudies, meta-analyses and reviews. Date of most recent search: March 2012.

Selection criteriaRCTs with at least 10 participants in each arm post-treatment comparing psychological therapies with active treatment wereeligible for inclusion (waiting list or standard medical care) for children or adolescents with episodic, recurrent or persistentpain.

Data collection and analysisAll included studies were analysed and the quality of the studies recorded. All treatments were combined into one class:psychological treatments; headache and non-headache outcomes were separately analysed on three outcomes: pain,disability, and mood. Data were extracted at two time points; post-treatment (immediately or the earliest data availablefollowing end of treatment) and at follow-up (at least three months after the post-treatment assessment point, but not morethan 12 months).

Main resultsEight studies were added in this update of the review, giving a total of 37 studies. The total number of participants completingtreatments was 1938. Twenty-one studies addressed treatments for headache (including migraine); seven for abdominalpain; four included mixed pain conditions including headache pain, two for fibromyalgia, two for pain associated with sicklecell disease, and one for juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Analyses revealed five significant effects. Pain was found to improve forheadache and non-headache groups at post-treatment, and for the headache group at follow-up. Mood significantly improvedfor the headache group at follow-up, although, this should be interpreted with caution as there were only two small studiesentered into the analysis. Finally, disability significantly improved in the non-headache group at post-treatment. There wereno other significant effects.

Authors' conclusions


3 / 67

Psychological treatments are effective in reducing pain intensity for children and adolescents (<18 years) with headache andbenefits from therapy appear to be maintained. Psychological treatments also improve pain and disability for children withnon-headache pain. There is limited evidence available to estimate the effects of psychological therapies on mood forchildren and adolescents with headache and non-headache pain. There is also limited evidence to estimate the effects ondisability in children with headache. These conclusions replicate and add to those of the previous review which foundpsychological therapies were effective in reducing pain intensity for children with headache and non-headache painconditions, and these effects were maintained at follow-up.

Plain language summaryPsychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescentsPsychological therapies (relaxation, hypnosis, coping skills training, biofeedback, cognitive behavioural therapy) aretreatments that may help people manage pain and its disabling consequences. For children and adolescents there is goodevidence that both relaxation and cognitive behavioural therapy (treatment that helps people test and revise their thoughtsand actions) are effective in reducing the severity and frequency of pain in chronic headache, recurrent abdominal pain,fibromyalgia, sickle cell disease, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis immediately after treatment is delivered. Psychologicaltherapies also have a lasting effect for improving mood and reducing pain for chronic headache. Forty-nine per cent ofchildren who received psychological therapies reported less pain compared with 17% of children who did not receive apsychological therapy. Disability is improved immediately after treatment for many pain conditions (not chronic headache)which helps young people to participate in important daily activities. More studies are needed to understand whetherpsychological therapies can improve mood and have more lasting effects on pain and disability in other groups of youngpeople who have chronic pain.

Background Description of the conditionThis review is an update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Eccleston 2009) on 'Psychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents'. Chronic andrecurrent pain (pain lasting more than three months) is a common problem in young people. Recent epidemiology gives theprevalence at 15% to 30%, with 8% of children described as having severe and frequent pain (Perquin 2000; Perquin 2001;Stanford 2008). The most common location for pain is in the head, abdomen, and limbs (Perquin 2000). All types of chronicand recurrent pain are more commonly reported by girls, and peak in incidence at ages 14 to 15 years (Stanford 2008).Young people report pain to be distressing and interfering, and in some cases this can be severely debilitating, affecting allaspects of a child's life (Bursch 1998; Palermo 2000) and the lives of their parents and family members (Walker 1989;Palermo 2005). The deleterious effects of untreated pain in childhood can also extend to adulthood (Fearon 2001).

Description of the interventionThere is a broad family of treatments included in the general term "psychological". In essence, treatments have beendeveloped that are specifically designed to alter psychological processes thought to underlie or significantly contribute topain, distress, and/or disability. The design of psychological treatments is normally informed by specific theories of theetiology of human behaviour, or have developed pragmatically through observation and study of response to intervention.Behavioural and cognitive treatments designed to ameliorate pain, distress and disability were first introduced with adultsover 40 years ago and have become well established (Fordyce 1968; Keefe 2004). A companion review of psychologicaltreatments for the management of chronic pain in adults is also published ( Eccleston 2009a).

How the intervention might workIn paediatric practice, however, the treatments have a shorter history and different therapeutic aims and components thanthose used with adults. In general, psychological treatments have aimed to control pain and modify situational, emotional,familial, and behavioural factors that play a role in pain or related consequences (e.g., McGrath 1990). A variety ofintervention strategies have been designed to reduce pain sensations, increase comfort, and/or reduce associated disabilityand dysfunction in children with pain conditions. Behavioural strategies include relaxation training, biofeedback, andbehavioural management programs (e.g., teaching parents operant strategies to reinforce adaptive behaviours such asschool attendance). Cognitive strategies include hypnosis, stress management, guided imagery, and cognitive coping skills (Palermo 2012).Cognitive behavioural programs incorporate elements of both behavioural and cognitive strategies. Given that headache andabdominal pain are the most common types of recurrent pain in children, most of the treatment literature has focused onthese two populations. By far the most commonly described treatment is relaxation training and/or biofeedback for headache,and recommendations have been made to offer psychological treatment as a matter of routine care for children withheadaches (Masek 1999). In an effort to enhance the efficiency of psychological treatments for children with headache, morerecent treatment developments have compared different elements of relaxation training and biofeedback with a variation intreatment formats (individual and group), treatment dose, and treatment setting (clinic, school, and home).Psychological therapies have also been developed to treat children with non-headache chronic and recurrent pain includingchildren with abdominal, musculoskeletal, and disease-related pain. Multidisciplinary pain treatment programs for childrenhave recently become a standard of care (McGrath 1999a), and now many specialised pain clinics are available for childrenwith chronic or recurrent pain, which may involve outpatient care or intensive inpatient rehabilitation. Such programs offerphysical rehabilitation, psychological treatment, and medical strategies, and aim to restore function rather than provide pain

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5754789_The_frequency_trajectories_and_predictors_of_adolescent_recurrent_pain_A_population-based_approach?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12938364_Commentary_The_pediatric_migraine_connection?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11988477_Relation_between_headache_in_childhood_and_physical_and_psychiatric_symptoms_in_adulthood_Nation_Birth_Cohort_Study?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/17529561_Some_implications_of_learning_in_problems_of_chronic_painJ_Chron_Dis_21_179-190?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51317843_Clinical_Assessment_and_Management_of_Chronic_Pain_and_Pain-Associated_Disability_Syndrome?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12610087_Impact_of_recurrent_and_chronic_pain_on_child_and_family_daily_functioning_A_critical_review_of_the_literature?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24281689_Psychological_therapies_for_the_management_of_chronic_pain_excluding_headache_in_adults_Review?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8544770_Psychological_aspects_of_persistent_pain_current_state_of_the_science_The_Journal_of_Pain_5_195-211?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12455817_Pain_in_children_and_adolescents_A_common_experience?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==


4 / 67

relief. There is evidence from case series and uncontrolled studies for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment withpsychological therapy for paediatric chronic and recurrent pain (Eccleston 2003b).

Why it is important to do this reviewSeveral reviews have documented the effectiveness of psychological therapies for children with headache, abdominal, anddisease-related pain (Janicke 1999; Kibby 1998; Holden 1999; Huertas-Ceballos 2008; Walco 1999; Weydert 2003). Threereviews have used data pooling techniques for studies of children with headache (Eccleston 2009; Hermann 1995;Trautmann 2006). In their review of paediatric migraine Hermann 1995 found that biofeedback and muscle relaxation aremore effective than placebo treatments and prophylactic drug treatments in controlling headache. In the previous publishedCochrane review (Eccleston 2009), we found that psychological treatments were effective in reducing pain intensity in youthswith headache. Trautmann 2006 conducted a meta-analysis of psychological treatment for recurrent headache in childrenfinding small effect sizes across three headache variables: frequency, duration, and intensity, although reduction in painintensity at post-treatment was a statistically significant effect. A large binomial effect size of 50% or greater reduction inheadache symptoms was reported.The previous Cochrane review (Eccleston 2009) is now out of date (Shojania 2007). Developments in paediatric psychologyhave led to new populations of children being treated. The aim of this review is to further update the published evidence onthe efficacy of psychological treatments for chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents in outcomes with chronic,non-headache, pain.

Objectives The primary objective of this update review was to determine the effectiveness of psychological therapy for chronic andrecurrent pain in children and adolescents compared with other psychological therapies, active treatment, waiting list, ormedical care on clinical outcomes of pain severity, mood, and disability.The secondary objective was to describe the methodological quality of the studies.

Methods Criteria for considering studies for this review Types of studies Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a credible psychological treatment, or a compound treatment with credibleprimary psychological content, active treatment, treatment as usual, or waiting list control, in paediatric chronic or recurrentpain. Content was judged credible if it referred to a scientific theory of psychological action. Studies were excluded if the painwas associated with a malignant life-threatening disease.Studies were included if they:

were available as a full publication or report of a RCT;had a design that placed a psychological treatment as an active treatment of primary interest;had a psychological treatment with definable psychotherapeutic content (although not necessarily delivered by someonewith psychological qualifications);were published (or electronically pre-published) in a peer-reviewed scientific journal;were with participants reporting chronic (i.e., three months duration of pain) or recurrent (i.e., episodic) pain; andhad 10 or more participants in each treatment arm at the end-of-treatment assessment.

Types of participants Children and adolescents (<18 years) reporting persistent, recurrent or episodic pain in any body site, not associated withcancer or similar life threatening malignant disease.

Types of interventions Studies were included if at least one trial arm consisted of a psychological intervention, and a comparator arm used, activetreatment, treatment as usual, or waiting list control.

Types of outcome measures Data were collected on descriptive characteristics of patients and characteristics of the treatments, including treatmentsetting and amount of treatment time.All measurement instruments reported in each study were assessed and recorded. The most appropriate measurementinstruments for the three domains of pain, (physical) disability, and mood were selected.Any mention of adverse events was also recorded.

Search methods for identification of studies Electronic searches Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any psychological therapy for paediatric chronic or recurrent pain were identified bysearching MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to March 2012. The Cochrane Central Register ofControlled Trials (CENTRAL) was searched in the previous versions of this review (Eccleston 2003a; Eccleston 2009).However, for this update of the review it was agreed by all authors that the sensitivity of CENTRAL for pain trials was low andthat all updated trials could be identified through the alternative databases and by contacting study authors for further trials.Three separate searches have been undertaken. The first search was undertaken from inception of the abstracting services


5 / 67

to the end of 1999 (Eccleston 2003a), the second searched databases from 1999 to 2008 (Eccleston 2009), and the thirdsearched databases from 2008 to March 2012.

Data collection and analysis Selection of studies The selection of included studies was made using the following criteria; the study had to be RCT in design and published in apeer-reviewed journal, include children (<18 years of age) who have chronic pain (non-malignant), include a psychologicalintervention as an active treatment, and have > 10 participants in each arm at post-treatment. Psychological interventionswere considered for inclusion if they had credible, recognisable psychological/psychotherapeutic content and werespecifically designed to change the child's behaviour, cognition, and/or outcomes. There were no additional criteria(regarding sample size or other) added for the purposes of this update, therefore, the trials used in the previous systematicreview and meta-analysis (Eccleston 2009) were considered automatically eligible and included.

Data extraction and management Data were extracted on details relating to the design of the study, the participants, primary diagnosis, method of treatment,outcome measurement tools used, and outcome data for computation of effect sizes. When data were missing on primaryoutcomes of interest, we contacted trial authors via email to obtain data necessary for effect size calculations. Data suitablefor pooling were entered into RevMan 5.1.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studiesThe risk of bias was measured using the recommended Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool (Higgins 2011). We selected fivecategories from this tool; random sequence generation (selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding ofoutcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), and selective reporting (reporting bias). Twocategories were excluded for the purposes of this review as they were deemed redundant because of the nature of deliveringor receiving a psychological intervention. The categories were 'blinding (performance bias and detection bias)' and 'blindingparticipants and personnel'.Judgements were made on the categories using the following rules. Random sequence generation judgements were basedon whether authors gave a convincing method of randomisation. Allocation concealment bias judgements were based onwhether there were convincing methods used for random allocation to take place. Participants being stratified by age orgender were not deemed as biased. Blinding of outcome assessment was judged on whether the measures were taken by athird party who was blind to the treatment condition. Incomplete outcome data bias judgements were based on whetherattrition was fully reported. Authors had to report attrition at each measurement time point (post-treatment and follow-up), andstate whether there were any significant differences between completers and non-completers. Finally, selective reportingbias was judged on whether data could be fully extracted for analyses in this review. If authors provided data whenrequested, this category would be marked as 'low bias'.

Assessment of quality of included studiesA quality rating scale designed specifically for studies of psychological treatments in chronic pain was applied (Yates 2005).All papers were scored by two of the review authors and consensus reached after initial comparison of ratings. Interraterreliability was calculated. The quality rating scale provides an overall total quality score (zero to 35) consisting of twosubscales: a treatment quality scale (zero to nine) covering stated rationale for treatment, manualisation, therapist training,and patient engagement; and a design and methods scale (zero to 26) covering inclusion/exclusion criteria, attrition, sampledescription, minimisation of bias (randomisation method, allocation bias, blinding of assessment, and equality of treatmentexpectations), selection of outcomes, length of follow-up, analyses, and choice of control. This comprehensive qualityassessment method was used in place of the single item of allocation bias.

Measures of treatment effectAll treatments labelled as psychological were combined in the following meta-analyses, and designated "Treatment".Similarly, all control conditions were combined and designated "Control". Where more than one intervention or control groupwas reported the intervention or control arms were combined to create a single pair-wise comparison in accordance with theCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). The studies were divided into two groups. Thefirst group was labelled "headache" and the second group was labelled "non-headache". Two assessment points were alsoselected: post-treatment and follow-up. Post-treatment is the assessment point occurring soonest following treatment (oftenafter a delay of several weeks to allow for recording of episodic pain), and follow-up is the assessment point at least threemonths after the post-treatment assessment point, but not more than 12 months, and the longer time point was selected ifthere were two follow-up assessments within this time frame. Therefore, four separate comparisons were designedcomprising two forms of comparator (Treatment, Control) and two assessment time points (post-treatment and follow-up).They were labelled as follows.

Treatment versus Control (headache) post-treatment.1.Treatment versus Control (headache) follow-up.2.Treatment versus Control (non-headache) post-treatment.3.Treatment versus Control (non-headache) follow-up.4.

Multiple measurement tools were typically used in each study. For each comparison, three outcomes were identified andlabelled "Pain", "Disability", and "Mood". From each trial we selected the measure considered most appropriate for each ofthe three outcomes. To guide the choice of outcome measure, we applied two rules. First, if an outcome measure was



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7607531_A_scale_for_rating_the_quality_of_psychological_trials_for_pain?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270744450_Chronic_pain_in_adolescents_evaluation_of_a_programme_of_interdisciplinary_cognitive_behaviour_therapy?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==


6 / 67

established and occurred frequently among studies it was selected over more novel instruments. Second, given a choicebetween single item and multi-item self-report tools, multi-item tools were chosen on the basis of inferred increased reliability.Studies did not necessarily report data in all three outcomes. For headache treatments, the data for pain outcomes weredichotomous so relative ratios or risk ratios (RR) were used, and we calculated numbers-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNTBs).For disability and mood outcomes, continuous data were used. Continuous data were used for pain, disability, and mood fornon-headache studies. Effect sizes can be interpreted as follows; small = 0.2, medium = 0.5, large = 0.8 (Cohen 1992).

Data synthesisFor dichotomous outcomes, such as achieved (or failed to achieve) 50% reduction in pain, we calculated the odds ratio (OR)using 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a random-effects model. For ease of interpretation, the risk ratio (RR), and NNTBare also reported. For continuous outcomes (such as rating scales) we calculated the standardized mean differences using95% CI and a random-effects model. The heterogeneity of the findings is also reported.

Results Description of studies See: Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded studies.

Results of the searchThree separate searches have been undertaken. The first search was undertaken from inception of the abstracting servicesto the end of 1999 (Eccleston 2003a). This yielded 3715 abstracts, of which 123 were read in full, identifying 18 RCTs. Thesecond search, which updated the original review, was undertaken focusing on the 10 years since the previous search,overlapping by one year; from 1999 to 2008 and was later published (Eccleston 2009). This yielded 1319 abstracts, of which45 papers were read in full, identifying a further 16 RCTs, giving a total set of 34. However, five studies were later excludedbecause they did not meet the minimum criteria of 10 participants in each arm, therefore, leaving 29 studies. The third, whichsearched databases from 2008 to March 2012 yielded 851 abstracts, of which 25 papers were read in full, and eight furtherRCTs were included in the review, giving a total of 37 RCTs (Abram 2007; Alfven 2007; Barakat 2010; Barry 1997; Bussone1998; Connelly 2006; Duarte 2006; Fichtel 2001; Gil 1997; Griffiths 1996; Hicks 2006; Humphreys 2000; Kashikar-Zuck 2005; Kashikar-Zuck 2012; Kroener-Herwig 2002; Labbe 1984; Labbe 1995; Larsson 1987a; Larsson 1987b; Larsson 1990;Larsson 1996; Levy 2010; Palermo 2009; McGrath 1988; McGrath 1992; Osterhaus 1997; Passchier 1990; Richter 1986;Robins 2005; Sanders 1994; Sartory 1998; Scharff 2002; Stinson 2010; Trautmann 2010; van Tilburg 2009; Vlieger 2007;Wicksell 2009). Nine further studies did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded (Fentress 1986; Kroener-Herwig1998; Larsson 1986; Olness 1987; Sanders 1989; Trautmann 2008; Vlieger 2012; Weydert 2006; Youssef 2009).

Included studiesOf the 37 included studies, eight are new to this update (Barakat 2010; Kashikar-Zuck 2012; Levy 2010; Palermo 2009;Stinson 2010; Trautmann 2010; van Tilburg 2009; Wicksell 2009).The total number of participants completing treatments was 1938, 506 more than the previous published analyses. Of the 37studies, one had four treatment arms, 11 had three arms, and 25 had two arms. The mean number of participants per studyat the end of treatment was 52 (sd = 34). Girls outnumbered boys in 26 studies, and boys outnumbered girls in nine, (65%girls, range 22 to 100%). Age was reported in 35 studies (mean = 11.6 years, sd = 4.1 years). Only 16 studies reported theduration of pain, with a mean of 3.8 years.Participants were recruited from a range of healthcare settings and other sources. Nineteen studies recruited from hospital orclinic settings, four from schools, six from direct advertisement, one study recruited from hospital/clinics and schools, twostudies recruited from hospitals and direct advertisements, and five did not report their source. There were 21 studies oftreatments for children with headache (including migraine). Of the remainder, seven were for abdominal pain (Alfven 2007;Duarte 2006; Humphreys 2000; Levy 2010; Robins 2005; Sanders 1994; van Tilburg 2009), and one study treatedparticipants with either a primary diagnosis of abdominal pain or a primary diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (Vlieger2007). Two studies treated children with fibromyalgia (Kashikar-Zuck 2005; Kashikar-Zuck 2012), two were for the treatmentof pain associated with sickle cell disease (Barakat 2010; Gil 1997) and a further three studies included mixed painconditions including headache and non-headache pain (Hicks 2006; Palermo 2009; Wicksell 2009) and so were included inboth analyses where appropriate. Five study authors provided additional data upon request.Treatment arms were classified on the basis of their content and of the label given by the study authors. The interventionswere categorised into two broad groups. The first is best described as behavioural, typically relaxation based, with or withoutbiofeedback, and including autogenic or hypnotherapeutic content (Bussone 1998; Fichtel 2001; Labbe 1984; Labbe 1995;Larsson 1987a; Larsson 1987b; Larsson 1990; Larsson 1996; McGrath 1988; McGrath 1992; Passchier 1990; Vlieger 2007).The second is best described as cognitive behavioural therapy, including cognitive coping, coping skills training, and parentoperant strategies (Abram 2007; Alfven 2007; Barakat 2010; Barry 1997; Connelly 2006; Duarte 2006; Gil 1997; Griffiths1996; Hicks 2006; Humphreys 2000; Kashikar-Zuck 2005; Kashikar-Zuck 2012; Kroener-Herwig 2002; Levy 2010; McGrath1992; Osterhaus 1997; Palermo 2009; Richter 1986; Robins 2005; Sanders 1994; Sartory 1998; Scharff 2002; Stinson 2010;Trautmann 2010; van Tilburg 2009; Wicksell 2009). Different control conditions were employed that were categorised intoeither active control (e.g. education, n = 19) or wait-list/treatment as usual control (n = 18). Ten studies reported post-treatment data only; five studies reported follow-up of three months or less and therefore were not included in analyses.Fifteen studies reported follow-up data between three months and a year. Thirty studies reported the treatment length whichwas typically short in duration (M = 5.3 hours for headache studies, M = 3.5 hours for non-headache studies, Table 1). Sevenstudies did not report on the duration of treatment (Alfven 2007; Connelly 2006; Hicks 2006; Humphreys 2000; Kashikar-

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45505825_A_Family-based_Randomized_Controlled_Trial_of_Pain_Intervention_for_Adolescents_With_Sickle_Cell_Disease?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7515491_Cognitive_coping_skills_training_in_children_with_sickle_cell_disease_pain?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26756257_Palermo_TM_Wilson_AC_Peters_M_et_al_Randomized_controlled_trial_of_an_Internet-delivered_family_cognitive-behavioral_therapy_intervention_for_children_and_adolescents_with_chronic_pain?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26329667_A_Power_primer?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270744450_Chronic_pain_in_adolescents_evaluation_of_a_programme_of_interdisciplinary_cognitive_behaviour_therapy?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==


7 / 67

Zuck 2005; Sartory 1998; Trautmann 2010).Treatment delivery varied between studies (Table 1). Eighteen studies delivered treatment in a clinic, eight studies deliveredtreatment at home, of which five used an internet- or computer-based delivery, three were based either in a clinic or at home,so exposure to treatment was uncontrolled. A further three were based in schools, and five were unknown. Homemaintenance or practice of treatment was a common and important feature of many studies, but overall treatment exposureincluding home practice was not reported. Supervised treatment or the introduction of treatment in self-delivery conditionswas, however, commonly reported.

Excluded studiesNine studies were excluded, of which four are new to this update (Trautmann 2008; Vlieger 2012; Weydert 2006; Youssef2009). Seven had fewer than 10 participants in a treatment arm at the end of treatment (Fentress 1986; Kroener-Herwig1998; Larsson 1986; Sanders 1989; Trautmann 2008; Weydert 2006; Youssef 2009), one study was judged to haveinsufficient psychological content in the treatment (Olness 1987), and one study reported only follow-up data of more thanone year (Vlieger 2012).

Risk of bias in included studies All included studies were rated for risk of bias on five categories; random sequence generation (selection bias), allocationconcealment (selection bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), andselective reporting (reporting bias) (Figure 1; Figure 2). Thirteen studies were scored as low risk of bias and gave aconvincing method of randomisation, a further 24 studies were judged unclear on random sequence generation as they didnot provide an adequate method of randomisation. There were none that were scored as having high risk of bias. There werefour studies that were judged to have a low risk of bias and gave a convincing method for the allocation, 22 studies that wereunclear and 11 studies that had a high risk of bias. Six studies used a third person who was blinded to the group allocationwhen taking measurements, 31 studies did not report this and so were unclear. Fifteen studies reported attrition fully,reporting that there was no significant difference between completers and non-completers. Seventeen studies only partiallyreported attrition and so were judged to be unclear and five studies did not report attrition so were judged to have a high riskof bias. Twenty-two studies reported data fully that could be extracted and used in analyses; 15 studies did not provide fullextractable data and were judged to have high risk of bias for selective reporting.

Assessment of quality in included studiesAll 37 studies were rated for their quality. For the previously included 29 studies, the quality was rated by two review authorsblind to each other's ratings. Intraclass correlation coefficients (absolute agreement) for the two raters on each of the threequality scores (trial quality, study design, and total) ranged from 0.87 for trial quality, 0.89 for study design, and 0.90 for totalquality. The quality for the updated eight studies was also rated by two review authors (EF, EL) and disagreements werearbitrated by a third review author (CE) meaning that agreement was met on all items.For the 37 included studies, the mean overall quality of the studies was 20.3 (sd = 5.6, range = 11 to 32). The mean designquality score was 14.4 (sd = 4.1, range = 8 to 23) and the mean treatment quality score was 5.9 (sd = 2.0, range = 2 to 9).The 'Risk of bias' tables' graphics show the overall total quality rating, and summary scores for the quality of the treatmentand the quality of the design (Figure 1; Figure 2). A Spearman's correlation was conducted to investigate the associationbetween year of study and treatment quality score, design quality score, and total quality score (sum of treatment quality anddesign quality). The total quality score was associated with the year of study (rho = 0.598, P < 0.001). Treatment quality anddesign quality were also associated with the year of study (rho = 0.596, P < 0.001; rho = 0.556, P < 0.001) respectively.Similarily, design quality was associated with treatment quality (rho = 0.662, P < 0.001). There were no differences in overallquality, treatment or design quality between headache and non-headache studies. The N at the end of treatment was notassociated with total quality score, or design and treatment quality scores when considered independently. This findingremains after accounting for trial complexity (i.e., the number of arms of a trial).Comparing the results of the quality of the studies reported in the previous published review (n = 29) and for this update (n =8), those published since Eccleston 2009 are of better overall quality (Mann Whitney U = 18.5, P < 0.001), treatment quality(Mann Whitney U = 21.0, P < 0.001) and design quality (Mann Whitney U = 28.5, P < 0.001). Finally, comparing thosepublished before and since the previous version of this review (Eccleston 2009) there was no significant change in the size ofthe trial, that is, there was not an increase in the end of treatment N.Twelve analyses were attempted (pain, disability, and mood outcomes were analysed for headache and non-headacheconditions at post-treatment and follow-up). One comparison had only one study contributing and so was excluded. Of theremaining 11 comparisons, five showed low heterogeneity (I2 < 25%), four showed modest heterogeneity (I2 > = 25% - <50%) and two showed large heterogeneity (I2 > = 50%).

Effects of interventions Treatment versus control (headache) post-treatmentEighteen studies of 748 participants were entered into an analysis of the effects of psychological treatment on painimmediately post-treatment (Barry 1997; Connelly 2006; Fichtel 2001; Griffiths 1996; Hicks 2006; Kroener-Herwig 2002;Labbe 1984; Labbe 1995; Larsson 1987a; Larsson 1987b; Larsson 1990; Larsson 1996; McGrath 1992; Osterhaus 1997;Palermo 2009; Sartory 1998; Scharff 2002; Trautmann 2010). This analysis gave an risk ratio (RR) of 2.90 (95% confidenceinterval (CI) 2.25 to 3.73; z = 8.25, P < 0.05) for a clinically significant change in pain (NNTB = 2.72; CI 2.32 to 3.29) (Figure3; Figure 4). Three studies of 108 participants were entered into analysis of the effects of treatment on disability (Connelly

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19338618_Comparison_of_self-hypnosis_and_propranolol_in_the_treatment_of_juvenile_classic_migraine_Pediatrics?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221810641_Long-Term_Follow-Up_of_Gut-Directed_Hypnotherapy_vs_Standard_Care_in_Children_With_Functional_Abdominal_Pain_or_Irritable_Bowel_Syndrome?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==


8 / 67

2006; Palermo 2009; Wicksell 2009). A small effect was found standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30 (95% CI -0.85 to0.24); and this was not significant (z = 1.09, P > 0.05). Five studies of 204 participants were entered into an analysis of theeffects of treatment on mood (Bussone 1998; Griffiths 1996; Palermo 2009; Trautmann 2010; Wicksell 2009). A small effectwas found SMD -0.16 (95% CI -0.45 to 0.13); and this was not significant (z = 1.07, P > 0.05).

Treatment versus control (headache) follow-upSix studies of 196 participants, were entered into analysis of the effects of treatment on pain at follow-up (Connelly 2006;Hicks 2006; Labbe 1984; Larsson 1987a; Larsson 1987b; Larsson 1996). This analysis gave an RR of 3.34, (95% CI 2.01 to5.53; z = 4.68, P < 0.05), for a clinically significant change in pain (NNTB = 2.01; CI 1.62 to 2.64). There was only one studythat could be analysed for disability at follow-up (Wicksell 2009), therefore no conclusion could be drawn. Two studies with59 participants was entered into an analysis of the effects of treatment on mood at follow-up (Bussone 1998; Wicksell 2009)finding a large effect of SMD -0.60 (95% CI -1.13 to -0.07; z = 2.24, P < 0.05).

Treatment versus control (non-headache) post-treatmentTwelve studies of 709 participants were entered into an analysis of the effects of psychological treatment on continuous painoutcomes immediately post-treatment (Barakat 2010; Hicks 2006; Humphreys 2000; Kashikar-Zuck 2005; Kashikar-Zuck2012; Levy 2010; Palermo 2009; Robins 2005; Stinson 2010; van Tilburg 2009; Vlieger 2007; Wicksell 2009). A large effectsize SMD -0.55 (95% CI -0.84 to -0.26; z = 3.70, P < 0.05) was found (Figure 5). Nine studies involving 588 participants wereentered into analysis of the effects of treatment on disability (Humphreys 2000; Kashikar-Zuck 2005; Kashikar-Zuck 2012;Levy 2010; Palermo 2009; Robins 2005; Stinson 2010; van Tilburg 2009; Wicksell 2009). A small but significant effect wasfound SMD -0.29 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.10; z = 2.99, P < 0.05). Six studies of 435 participants were entered into analysis of theeffects of treatment on mood (Kashikar-Zuck 2005; Kashikar-Zuck 2012; Levy 2010; Palermo 2009; Stinson 2010; Wicksell2009). A small effect size was found SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.42 to 0.15); and this was not significant (z = 0.92, P > 0.05).

Treatment versus control (non-headache) follow-upFive studies of 357 participants, had data available for analysis of the effects of treatment on pain at follow-up (Barakat 2010;Hicks 2006; Kashikar-Zuck 2012; Levy 2010; Wicksell 2009). A small effect size was found SMD -0.17 (95% CI -0.60 to 0.26)and this was not significant (z = 0.77, P > 0.05). Three studies of 292 participants were entered into an analysis of the effectsof treatment on disability (Kashikar-Zuck 2012; Levy 2010; Wicksell 2009). A small effect size was found SMD -0.19 (95% CI-0.51 to 0.13) and this was not significant (z = 1.14; P > 0.05). Three studies of 292 participants were entered into ananalysis of the effects of treatment on mood (Kashikar-Zuck 2012; Levy 2010; Wicksell 2009). A small effect size was foundSMD -0.09 (95% CI -0.32 to 0.14) and this was not significant (z = 0.74, P > 0.05).

Discussion Evidence baseEight additional studies (end of treatment n = 506) were added in this update providing a total of 37 studies and an overallsample of 1938 participants. The outcomes measured and the categories of measurement remain the same. In multi-armtrials involving more than one treatment or control group, similar treatments or control groups were combined for thepurposes of the analyses. The majority of studies used one or two treatment conditions in comparison to a waiting list orstandard care control group. Similar to the previous review, the treatments could still be categorised as behavioural orcognitive behavioural although the data were not analysed in this way. The average length of treatment for headache studieswas 5.3 hours, and for non-headache studies it was considerably shorter (M = 3.5 hours). Follow-up data are increasinglybeing reported in more recent studies and were included when relevant. The overall quality of the studies has improved sincethe previous review (Eccleston 2009), although the size of the samples did not increase over time.The inclusion of further studies has extended the evidence base. Of the 12 possible analyses, five were significant, and threewere different from the previous review. Pain intensity was found to improve for headache and non-headache groups at post-treatment, and for the headache group at follow-up. Forty-nine per cent of children with headaches significantly improvedtheir pain scores at post-treatment after receiving psychological therapy compared with only 17% in the control group.However, the addition of more studies to the non-headache pain intensity analysis at follow-up meant this was no longersignificant. Disability was significantly improved in non-headache analyses at post-treatment, although the effect size wassmall. This was also true for mood in the headache group at follow-up. However, this should be interpreted with caution asthere were only two studies available for analysis. Pain intensity was the most common treatment outcome assessed, with 18 studies of children with headache and 12 ofchildren with non-headache pain providing data on pain intensity that could be analysed. An NNTB of 2.72 for psychologicaltherapies to produce more than 50% relief in pain in children with headaches was found. An NNTB of 2.01 was found for thesmaller number of trials reporting follow-up. Large effect sizes were also found for reduction in pain intensity in non-headache chronic and recurrent pain at post-treatment. However, the confidence intervals around the effects are large.

Issues for considerationFurther to the previous update, there have been developments in the field which are reflected in the updated trials. All of thenew trials used cognitive behavioural therapy compared to purely behavioural therapy. Five of the eight updated studies werenon-headache trials, and a further two included mixed samples and so were included in both headache and non-headacheanalyses. All the updated studies provide data on mood and disability, and four studies provided data that could be enteredinto the follow-up analyses thereby allowing a better estimate of the maintenance of interventions. Reflecting advances intreatment delivery, four updated studies (six in total) used computer applications (internet and/or CD-ROM) to provide

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41849520_Cognitive-Behavioral_Therapy_for_Children_With_Functional_Abdominal_Pain_and_Their_Parents_Decreases_Pain_and_Other_Symptoms?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41849520_Cognitive-Behavioral_Therapy_for_Children_With_Functional_Abdominal_Pain_and_Their_Parents_Decreases_Pain_and_Other_Symptoms?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==



9 / 67

treatment to the children.In regard to condition, this review included 21 headache studies, seven abdominal pain studies, two sickle cell diseasestudies, two fibromyalgia studies, four mixed pain studies and one juvenile idiopathic arthritis study. Psychological treatmentstill appears to have a minimal impact on disability and mood despite reporting two significant effects from this update.Previously, we reported that mood and disability outcomes in trials with children with chronic pain were a focus for trials (McGrath 2008) and this seems to be the case as seven of the eight updated studies had extractable data for disabilityanalyses and five out of eight studies provided extractable data for mood analyses. As these outcomes are being measuredand reported more frequently, standardised measurements should be used consistently across the field of paediatric chronicpain and treatments should specifically target changes in these areas.One limitation of this review is that we are unable to fully discuss the effectiveness of psychological interventions as theywere compared with a control group that combined active (e.g. education) and wait-list controls. Just over half the studiesused active controls, yet we did not feel that it was an appropriate sample to separate for analysis as has been done in acompanion review of treatments for adults with pain (Eccleston 2009a). This limitation may contribute to an overestimation ofthe treatment effects since it is not possible to separate differences specific to treatment versus active treatment or waitinglist control.

Authors' conclusions Implications for practice Psychological treatments, principally relaxation and cognitive behavioural therapies, are effective treatments of childhoodheadache pain at post-treatment and follow-up, and mood at follow-up. Behavioural and cognitive behavioural treatments arealso effective in reducing non-headache pain, and disability at post-treatment. There is insufficient evidence to explain theeffectiveness of psychological interventions for individual non-headache pain conditions due to the limited number of studiesfor each condition.

Implications for research Since the original version of this review there has been an improvement in the evidence base by the addition of new studies,and the extension into non-headache pain conditions, and treatments that rely on more complex methods. This update addsstudies to the previous review so readers are able to understand the effects that psychological interventions have forheadache and non-headache pain. However, this structure limits our understanding of whether psychological therapies areunique in their improvement of symptoms in comparison to active or wait-list control groups, yet we felt this was important topresent before introducing further analyses. The author team are considering the following possible changes for the nextversion of the review.

Increasing the current criterion of 10 participants in both the treatment and control groups at the point of analysis, to 20.1.Splitting the title into two titles: one based on headache only and one based on treatment for non-headache disorders.2.Introducing sub-group analysis to focus on critical issues in therapy such as type of therapy, dose of therapy, location of3.therapy, and involvement of other quasi therapeutic agents (e.g., parents).

MeasurementMeasurement of non-pain outcomes is increasing and should continue to be included and reported in trials with children andadolescents. Recommendations are now available with regards to evidence based assessment of relevant domains for trialsof chronic and recurrent pain in children (McGrath 2008). Measures have been developed to assess the majority of thesedomains. However, additional validation work is needed particularly on child disability outcome measures. Currently availablemeasures have several limitations including a lack of data on sensitivity to change and factor structure, and do not haveestablished cut-off scores to aid in interpretation of scores as situated in the clinical versus normative range (Palermo 2008).It is currently unclear whether treatments might be effective at changing particular aspects of disability because themeasures lump together various concepts such as vigorous physical activity, role functioning (e.g., school attendance), andregular activity participation. Future validation work may help disentangle this complex and multidimensional domain.

TreatmentStudies in this review are dominated by behavioural or cognitive behavioural treatments. However, more recent studies showa shift towards cognitive behavioural therapy. There is now a call for more varied psychological therapies that have beenused in other paediatric chronic illnesses such as diabetes (multisystemic therapy), cancer (problem-solving therapy) andasthma (family therapy). Such therapies in painful conditions would give a broader understanding of which therapies canwork for a particular population. There is also a need for more trials in non-headache conditions as we are as yet unable tounderstand the effectiveness of psychological interventions in specific conditions such as sickle cell disease. There havebeen developments in the delivery of treatments with technology advances. Five trials delivered their therapy using acomputer- or internet-based programme (Connelly 2006; Hicks 2006; Palermo 2009; Trautmann 2010; Wicksell 2009). Thisdelivery mode has the ability to reach more patients quicker, and in this digital age, these treatments are fast becoming themost accessible. As reported in the previous review, important information is still lacking in trials such as treatmentexpectations, treatment history, baseline pain and disability which is important to understand how and why some treatmentsare more effective than others. Similarly, treatment response is precluded by individual differences of the trials and samples,such as small sample sizes, mixed illness groups and wide age ranges included in the current trials.

Trial designTrials have improved in quality and updated trials include follow-up periods so we are better able to understand the

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5421650_Evidence-based_Assessment_of_Health-related_Quality_of_Life_and_Functional_Impairment_in_Pediatric_Psychology?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26839188_A_randomized_controlled_trial_of_Internet-based_self-help_training_for_recurrent_headache_in_childhood_and_adolescence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26756257_Palermo_TM_Wilson_AC_Peters_M_et_al_Randomized_controlled_trial_of_an_Internet-delivered_family_cognitive-behavioral_therapy_intervention_for_children_and_adolescents_with_chronic_pain?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6925484_Headstrong_A_pilot_study_of_a_CD-ROM_intervention_for_recurrent_pediatric_headache?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5292953_Core_Outcome_Domains_and_Measures_for_Pediatric_Acute_and_ChronicRecurrent_Pain_Clinical_Trials_PedIMMPACT_Recommendations?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5292953_Core_Outcome_Domains_and_Measures_for_Pediatric_Acute_and_ChronicRecurrent_Pain_Clinical_Trials_PedIMMPACT_Recommendations?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-c0d26a9f-e034-4b01-a8b5-fb5df3ffb462&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzkwOTAyODtBUzoxODA5ODY0NzQxNDc4NDBAMTQyMDE2MTk0NjM4MQ==


10 / 67

maintenance of treatment effects. However, the number of participants entering treatments is still small and should beincreased in future trials, and multi-site collaboration is needed to achieve this. More trials are needed in non-headache painconditions so as to determine the effectiveness of psychological therapies for individual conditions. Therapies should also betailored to the child and families’ needs, and sociodemographic differences should be explored and reported. Treatmentsdelivered are to date dominated by behavioural or cognitive behavioural therapy. Future trials should expand beyond thesetherapy groups to identify if other therapies are effective for chronic pain conditions and all treatments should include specificcontent to improve disability and mood. Finally, new trials should use active comparators over wait-list control groups.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Kiki Mastroyannopoulou and Louise Yorke for their contributions to the original version of this review.Thank you also to Hannah Somhegyi for help with coding and data management and to Jane Hayes for running the updatedsearch. Finally, thanks also go to the PaPaS review group team and to the peer referees for their helpful comments.

Contributions of authors Christopher Eccleston oversaw the project and contributed to the design, analysis and authoring of the text and isresponsible for any future update of this review.Amy Lewandowski, Emma Fisher, Emily Law, Stephen Morley, Tonya Palermo, and Amanda Williams, all contributed to thedesign, analysis and authoring of the text.

Declarations of interest None known.

Differences between protocol and review In Eccleston 2009 CENTRAL database was searched to recruit studies. In this review we judged this to have a low yield1.and any potential studies could be identified through PsychINFO, EMBASE, and MEDLINE.In this update of the review, there is more clarity around how treatment and control groups were combined.2.In Eccleston 2009 Odds Ratios and Risk Ratios were reported for dichotomous outcomes. In this review we only report3.Risk Ratios.

Published notes Characteristics of studiesCharacteristics of included studies Abram 2007



11 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment (three month follow-up),six months

Participants End of treatment n = 50Start of treatment n = 81Sex: 45F, 36MMean age = 12.7 (range 10-18)Source = Hospital and ClinicDiagnosis = HeadacheMean years of pain = not given

Interventions "Headache Clinical Model: behavioural intervention""Headache Traditional Model: consultation with neurologist"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: nonePrimary Disability Outcome: Ped-MIDASPrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment (Ped-MIDAS)2. FDI-C3. Headache Knowledge test4. Use of Healthcare measure

Notes Updated Study 2009Total Quality = 22/35Treatment Quality = 7/9Design Quality = 15/26

Risk of bias table

Bias Authors'judgement Support for judgement

Random sequence generation(selection bias)

Low risk 'If the family was interested in the study, they were randomised (using arandom number table) to either a TCM appointment or a HCMappointment.' Comment: Probably done.

Allocation concealment (selectionbias)

Unclear risk No description found in text. Comment: Probably not done.

Blinding of outcome assessment(detection bias)


Incomplete outcome data (attritionbias)

Unclear risk Attrition is described, however no significant descriptions betweencompleters and non-completers were reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Data were incompletely reported.

Alfven 2007


12 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment and one-year follow-up

Participants End of treatment n = 48Start of treatment n = 48Sex: 61F, 22M (Of entire sample in three treatment conditions, one postrandomisation)Mean age = 9.9 (range 6-18)Source = HospitalDiagnosis = Recurrent Abdominal PainMean years of pain = 2.5

Interventions "psychological treatment and physiotherapy""Physiotherapy alone"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Pain scorePrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Pain intensity (VAS)2. Pain Scorea) frequencyb) intensityc) duration3. Tender points (algometer)


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'The children recruited during 1996–1999 were randomised'.Comment: probably done, method not described.






Low risk No dropouts reported.


Barakat 2010


13 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment and twelve months

Participants End of treatment n = 42, Follow-up 1 year n = 34Start of treatment n = 42Sex: 12F, 15MMean age = 14.17 (1.75)Source = Sickle cell centreDiagnosis = Sickle Cell DiseaseMean years of pain = Lifetime

Interventions "Pain Management Intervention""Disease Education Intervention"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Pain DiaryPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Pain Diary2. Health-related Hindrance Inventory3. Child Health Questionnaire4. Family Cohesion Scale5. Disease Self-efficacy Scale6. Coping Strategies Inventory7. SCD Transition Knowledge Questionnaire8. Medical Chart Review9. School Attendance

Notes Updated study 2012Total Quality = 27/35Treatment Quality = 9/9Design Quality = 18/26

Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'A 2-group, randomised treatment design was used.’ Comment:Probably done, method not described.






Unclear risk Attrition is described, no significant descriptions between completersand non-completers were reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Data were fully reported.

Barry 1997


14 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, three months.

Participants End of treatment n = 29Start of treatment n = 36Sex: 19F, 10MMean age = 9.4Source = Volunteers via school & primary healthcare settings; referrals invited fromprimary and secondary careDiagnosis = HeadacheMean years of pain not given

Interventions "Cognitive behaviour therapy""Waiting list control"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache intensityPrimary Disability Outcome: School absencePrimary Mood Outcome: none

Headache intensity1.Headache duration2.Mood3.School absence due to headache4.Activities missed due to headache5.Medication intake6.Pain management strategies used7.

Notes Original Study

Total Quality = 14/35Treatment Quality = 3/9Design Quality = 11/26

Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'Each parent-child pair was initially matched with another pair based on thechild’s age, sex and headache pain as indicated by the parents’ ratings ofaverage duration, frequency, and intensity of headaches. Subsequently,one of each of them matched parent-child pairs was randomly assigned toeither the treatment condition or the waiting list control condition.’Comment: Probably done, method not described


High risk 'Each parent-child pair was initially matched with another pair based on thechild’s age, sex and headache pain as indicated by the parents’ ratings ofaverage duration, frequency, and intensity of headaches. Subsequently,one of each of them matched parent-child pairs was randomly assigned toeither the treatment condition or the waiting list control condition.’Comment: Probably done.


Unclear riskNo description found in text. Comment: Probably not done.


Unclear riskAttrition is described, no significant descriptions between completers andnon-completers were reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Data was incompletely reported.


15 / 67

Bussone 1998Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, six months, 12 months

Participants End of Treatment n = 35

Start of Treatment n = 35Sex: 17F, 18MMean age = 11.4 (range 11-15)Source = Specialised headache clinicDiagnosis = HeadacheMean years of pain (mean) = 2.6

Interventions "Biofeedback (assisted relaxation)""Relaxation"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Pain indexPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: Anxiety (STAI)1. Pain Total Index (Headache Diary)2. State Trait Anxiety Index (STAI)3. Analgesic use


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'Patients were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions'.Comment: Probably done, method not described.


High risk '..with the constraint that subjects be over-sampled in BFB-RELtreatment (2:1 ratio) in order to make actual treatment available to asmany children as possible.' Comment: Probably done.




Low risk No dropouts reported in study.

Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Data incompletely reported.

Connelly 2006


16 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, two months, threemonths.

Participants End of Treatment n = 36Start of treatment n = 37Sex: 18F, 19MMean age = 10.0 (range 7-12)Source = ClinicDiagnosis = HeadacheMean years of pain = not given

Interventions "CD-ROM behavioural""Wait-list neurology TAU"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache diaryPrimary Disability Outcome: Ped-MIDASPrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Total Pain (Headache diary)2. Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment (Ped-MIDAS)


Risk of bias table



Low risk 'Randomly assigned to one of two groups by a research assistant using auniform random numbers table.’ Comment: Probably done.


Low risk 'Randomly assigned to one of two groups by a research assistant using auniform random numbers table.’ Comment: Probably done.


Low risk 'Study neurologists remained blind to randomisation condition throughoutthe study. Chance of unbinding were limited because follow-upappointments with the study neurologist were scheduled for 2 monthsfollowing the initial assessment.’ Comment: probably done


Unclear risk Attrition is described, however significant descriptions betweencompleters and non-completers was not reported.


Duarte 2006


17 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment

Participants End of Treatment n = 32Start of Treatment n = 32Sex: 22F, 10MMean age = 9.1 (sd 2.1)Source = Paediatric gastroenterology serviceDiagnosis = Recurrent abdominal painMean years of pain = 2.1

Interventions "Cognitive behavioural family intervention""Standard paediatric care, 4 sessions"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: pain intensity VASPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Pain VAS (reduced to 4 categories), completed daily2. Parent estimate of frequency over last month3. Pressure point threshold using algometer


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'Randomly allocated to 2 groups.’ Comment: Probably done, methodnot described.






Low risk No dropouts were reported in the study.


Fichtel 2001


18 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, eight-12 months

Participants End of Treatment n = 36Start of Treatment n = 36Sex: 25F, 11MMean age = 15.4 (range 13-18)Source = SchoolDiagnosis = HeadacheMean years of pain = not given

Interventions "Relaxation""Waiting List Control"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Total headache scorePrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Total headache score (Headache diary)2. Medication consumption


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'The subjects were randomly assigned to the relaxation treatment orwaiting list groups'. Comment: Probably done, no method is described.






Low risk No dropouts were reported in the study.


Gil 1997


19 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment.

Participants End of Treatment n = 49Start of treatment n = 49Sex: 23F, 26MMean age = 11.9Source = University medical centre sickle cell centreDiagnosis = Sickle cell anaemia (SS), sickle cell disease (SC), sickle betathalassaemiaMean years of pain = not given

Interventions "Cognitive coping skills""Standard care control"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: nonePrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Pain sensitivity (pressure stimulator)2. Coping strategy questionnaire3. Disease severity: acute and chronic complications in past 12 months

Notes Original StudyTotal Quality = 16/35Treatment Quality = 8/9Design Quality = 8/26

Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'Participants were then randomly assigned to one of two conditions.'Comment: Probably done, method not described.







Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Data not fully reported.

Griffiths 1996


20 / 67

Methods RCT. Three arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment and nine weeks post-treatment.

Participants End of Treatment n = 42, Follow-up n = 42Start of Treatment n = 51Sex: 21F, 21MMean age = 11.3Source = Not knownDiagnosis = MigraineMean years of pain = not given: minimum 6 months

Interventions "Cognitive behavioural therapy (clinic based)""cCgnitive behavioural therapy (home based)""Self monitoring"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: headache indexPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: Child Depression Scale1. Headache index (averaged intensity)2. Medication used3. Child Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS)4. Children's Depression Scale (CDS)5. Self-efficacy6. Coping responses from Children's Headache Assessment Scale (CHAS)


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'It was decided to assign children to groups by true randomisation ratherthan on the basis of headache diagnosis'. Comment: Probably done, nomethod is described.






High risk Attrition was not described.


Hicks 2006


21 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, one month post-treatment, three months.

Participants End of Treatment n = 37, one-month follow-up = 37, three-month follow-up = 32Start of Treatment n = 47Sex: 30F, 17MMean age = 11.7 (range 9-16)Source = Advertisements in media, physicians' offices and schoolDiagnosis = Headache and RAPDuration (mean): three years.

Interventions "Internet CBT (with internet and phone)""Standard Care (Wait List)"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Total Pain ScorePrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Pain diary2. NRS frequency3. NRS intensity4. PEDSQL5. Parental Quality of Life


Risk of bias table



Low risk 'The 47 participants were stratified by age and pain severity andrandomly assigned by blocks to either the treatment condition or thestandard medical care wait-list condition.’ Comment: Probably done.


Low risk 'The 47 participants were stratified by age and pain severity andrandomly assigned by blocks to either the treatment condition or thestandard medical care wait-list condition.’ Comment: Probably done.




Low risk Attrition is described, no significant descriptions between completers andnon-completers were reported.


Humphreys 2000


22 / 67

Methods RCT. Four arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment

Participants End of Treatment n = 61Start of Treatment n = 64Sex: 38F, 26MMean age = 9.8 (sd 2.5)Source = Advertisement + physician referralDiagnosis = Recurrent Abdominal PainMean years of pain = None given

Interventions "CBT + biofeedback + parental support + fibre""CBT + biofeedback + fibre""Biofeedback + fibre""fibre"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Pain DiaryPrimary Disability Outcome: School AttendancePrimary Mood Outcome: None1. Child Pain Diary2. Parental Observation Record3. Health Care Utilisation Record4. Medical Record5. School attendance


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'Patients were randomly assigned to one of the four groups'.Comment: Probably done, method not described.






High risk Attrition not described, significant differences between completers andnon-completers no reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Data fully reported.

Kashikar-Zuck 2005


23 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment (week 8), six weeks.

Participants End of treatment n = 27Start of Treatment n = 30Sex: 30F, 0MMedian age = 15.8 (sd 1.3)Source = Paediatric rheumatology clinic of children's hospitalDiagnosis = Juvenile primary fibromyalgia (JPFM criteria; Yunus)Mean years of pain = 19 for > 2 years, 11 for 6 months to 2 years

Interventions "Coping skills training""Self-monitoring"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Average pain VASPrimary Disability Outcome: Functional Disability InventoryPrimary Mood Outcome: Children's Depression Inventory1. Average pain VAS 0-1002. Highest pain VAS 0-1003. Functional Disability Inventory (FDI)4. Children's Depression Inventory (CDI)5. Pain Coping Questionnaire (PCQ)6. Pain Coping Efficacy (items from PCQ)7. Tender points


Risk of bias table



Low risk 'A computer generated pseudo-random number list was used. A simplerandomisation technique was used with a 1:1 allocation ratio for 30subjects as a single block.’ Comment: Probably done


Low risk 'A computer generated pseudo-random number list was used. A simplerandomisation technique was used with a 1:1 allocation ratio for 30subjects as a single block.’ Comment: Probably done


Low risk 'A research assistant who was blind to the study objectives and to thesubjects’ treatment assignment administered the self-report measures.The rheumatologist or occupational therapist who conducted the tenderpoint assessments was blind to the subjects’ treatment assignment.’Comment: Probably done


Unclear risk Attrition is described, however significant descriptions between completersand non-completers was not reported.



24 / 67

Kashikar-Zuck 2012Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed pre-treatment, post-treatment, six-month follow-up.

Participants End of treatment n = 106, Follow-up six months n = 100

Start of treatment n = 114Sex: 105F, 9MMean age = 15.0 (1.8)Source = Paediatric rheumatology centres in Midwestern USADiagnosis = Fibromyalgia SyndromeMean years of pain = two years, 10 months (2yrs, 6mth)

Interventions "Cognitive behavioural therapy""Fibromyalgia education"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Pain Severity VAS (averaged over seven days)Primary Disability Outcome: Functional Disability ScalePrimary Mood Outcome: Children's Depression Inventory1. Pain severity VAS (averaged over seven days)2. Functional Disability Scale3. Children's Depression Inventory4.Tender point sensitivity5. Pedatric Quality of Life Inventory6. Sleep quality VAS (averaged over seven days)7. Physician's global assessment VAS


Risk of bias table



Low risk 'Eligible patients were randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 treatment armsbased upon a computer-generated randomisation list. Randomisation wasstratified by site.’ Comment: probably done


Low risk 'When a patient was enrolled, the study therapist contacted thebiostatistician to obtain the subject identification number and treatmentallocation.’ Comment: Probably done


Low risk 'The principle investigator, study physicians, study coordinator, andassessment staff were all blinded to the patients’ treatment conditionthroughout the trial. Patients were asked not to divulge what treatmentthey were receiving to the study physician.’ Comment: Probably done


Low risk Attrition is described, no significant descriptions between completers andnon-completers were reported.



25 / 67

Kroener-Herwig 2002Methods RCT. Three arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, six months.

Participants End of treatment n = 75

Start of treatment n = 78Sex: 35F, 40MMean age = 12.1 (sd 1.3)Source = Newspaper advertisement - two or more headaches per month reported byparentsDiagnosis = Paediatric headache: migraine (30%), tension-type (40%), combined(30%)Mean years of pain = 4.0 (sd 2.6)

Interventions "Cognitive behavioural training group""Self-help""Waiting list control"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: pain intensityPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Headache frequency (mean no. per day)2. Pain intensity (mean daily)3. Headache duration (mean no hours per day)


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'Assignment to the treatment groups was random.' Comment: Probablydone, method not described.








Labbe 1984


26 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment (one month after end oftreatment), six months.

Participants End of treatment n = 28Start of Treatment n = 28Sex: 14F, 14MMean age = 10.8Source = Community paediatrician referral, newspaper advertisementDiagnosis = Migraine headacheMean years of pain = 4.3

Interventions "Autogenic feedback training""Waiting list control"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache diaryPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Headache index2. Headache frequency3. Headache duration4. Headache peak intensity5. Medication use


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'The children who attended the first session were matched on age, sex,and baseline headache index and then randomly assigned to either atreatment group or waiting-list control group.' Comment: Probably done,method not described.







Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Data were reported fully.

Labbe 1995


27 / 67

Methods RCT. Three arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, six months.

Participants End of treatment n = 30Start of Treatment n = 46Sex: 17F, 13MMean age = 12.0Source = Not givenDiagnosis = Vascular or migraine headacheMean years of pain = not given.

Interventions "Skin temperature biofeedback and autogenic relaxation""Autogenic relaxation""Waiting list control"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: headache diaryPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: Childhood Depression Inventory1. Headache index2. Headache frequency3. Headache duration4. Child aggression parent-rated (Myth Type A)5. Childhood Depression Inventory6. How-I-Feel questionnaire: anxiety


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'Children were matched by age, sex, and baseline headache activity andthen randomly assigned to one of three groups.' Comment: Probablydone, no method described.






Low risk 'Data on the dropouts were compared to those children participating inthe treatment sessions. No differences were found in sex, age orheadache history.' Comment: Probably done.


Larsson 1987a


28 / 67

Methods RCT. Three arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, five months

Participants End of treatment n = 46Start of Treatment n = 46Sex: 40F, 6MMean age = Not given: range 16-18Source = Not givenDiagnosis = Headache (migraine, tension, or both)Mean years of pain = Most one-five years

Interventions "Therapist assisted relaxation""Self-help relaxation""Self monitoring group"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache sumPrimary Disability Outcome: school absencePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Headache sum2. Headache frequency3. Headache-free days4. Headache duration5. Peak headache intensity6. Medication7. School absence8. Significant other rating of headache improvement9. Cost-effectiveness


Risk of bias table



Unclearrisk

'In the randomisation procedure'. Comment: Probably done, no methoddescribed.


High risk 'In the randomisation procedure the following restrictions were applied: (a)class mates were assigned to the same treatment group in order to lessenthe risk of treatment contamination, (b) subjects were evenly distributedacross groups within separate schools.' Comment: Probably done.


Unclearrisk

No description found in text. Comment: Probably not done.


Unclearrisk

Attrition is described, however significant differences between completersand non-completers were not reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Data were not fully reported.


29 / 67

Larsson 1987bMethods RCT. Three arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, five months.

Participants End of treatment n = 36, follow-up n = 34

Start of Treatment n = 36Sex: 32F, 2MMean age = 17Source = Not givenDiagnosis = HeadacheMean years of pain = Most 1-5 years

Interventions "Self-help relaxation""Problem discussion group""Self monitoring (control)"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache sumPrimary Disability Outcome: School absencePrimary Mood Outcome: Depression1. Headache sum2. Headache frequency3. Headache-free days4. Headache duration5. Peak headache intensity6. Medicine consumption7. School absence8. Headache annoyance9. Depression/anxiety10. Social relationship-competence questionnaire11. Significant other rating of headache improvement


Risk of bias table


30 / 67



Unclear risk 'Finally, 36 students were randomly assigned to the three experimentalconditions.' Comment: Probably done, no method described.


High risk 'The allocation of subjects was conducted with two restrictions on theprocedure: (a) Classmates were assigned to the same treatment condition(to lessen the risk of treatment contamination), and (b) students with ahigh frequency of headaches were identified and evenly distributed acrossgroups.' Comment: Probably done.




High risk Attrition is not described.

Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Data were not fully reported.

Larsson 1990Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment


Start of Treatment n = 49Sex: 44F, 5MMean age = 17Source = SchoolDiagnosis = HeadacheMean years of pain = median 2-5 years

Interventions "Self help relaxation""Waiting list control"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache activityPrimary Disability Outcome: none givenPrimary Mood Outcome: Depression (BDI)1. Headache index2. Medication use3. Headache annoyance4. Modified Child Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS)5. Depression - Beck Depression Inventory6. Somatic complaints (composite of multiple complaints)7. Stress (4-point scale)


Risk of bias table


31 / 67



Unclear risk '...the outlines of the study including the use of randomisation and aplacebo treatment period.' Comment: Probably done, method notdescribed.




Unclear risk 'A graduate student in psychology administered the assessmentinstruments and the treatment material used in the study.' Comment:unsure.




Larsson 1996Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, six months


Start of Treatment n = 26Sex: 25F, 1MMean age = Not given: range 10-15 yearsSource = SchoolDiagnosis = HeadacheMean years of pain = 2.1

Interventions "Relaxation treatment""No treatment"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache intensityPrimary Disability Outcome: NonePrimary Mood Outcome: None1. Headache intensity ('sum')2. Headache-free days3. Headache frequency


Risk of bias table


32 / 67



Unclear risk 'Thus, 26 pupils were randomly allocated into a relaxation training groupor to a no-treatment control group'. Comment: Probably done, nomethod described.






Low risk There were no dropouts reported in the study.


Levy 2010Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, three-month follow-up,

six-month follow-up.

Participants End of treatment n = 168, Follow-up three months n = 143, Follow-up six months = 154Start of treatment n = 200Sex: 145F, 55MMean age = 11.21 (2.55)Source = Pediatric gastroenterology clinics at Seattle Children’s Hospital and theAtlantic Health System in Morristown, New Jersey. Seattle participants were alsorecruited through local area clinics and community-posted flyers.Diagnosis = Functional Abdominal PainMean years of pain = 3+ episodes of abdominal pain during a 3-month period

Interventions "Cognitive-behavioural treatment""Educational intervention"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Faces Pain Scale-RevisedPrimary Disability Outcome: Functional Disability InventoryPrimary Mood Outcome: Children's Depression Inventory1. Faces Pain Scale-Revised2. Functional Disability Inventory3. Children's Depression Inventory4. Children's Somatization Inventory5. Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children


Risk of bias table


33 / 67



Low risk 'Randomisation was then performed by a different researcher using acomputerised random-number generator, stratifying by age.’ Comment:probably done.


Low risk 'Randomisation was then performed by a different researcher using acomputerised random-number generator, stratifying by age.’ Comment:probably done.


Low risk 'Nurse assessors were blind to the treatment assignment of thechildren.’ Comment: Probably done.


Unclear risk Attrition is described, significant differences between completers andnon-completers are not reported.


McGrath 1988Methods RCT. Three arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, three months, 12

months.

Participants End of treatment n = 99Start of Treatment n =136Sex: 69F, 30MMean age = 13.1 (range 11-18)source = HospitalDiagnosis = HeadacheMean years of pain = not given: minimum three months

Interventions "Relaxation training""Attention control""Own best efforts"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache indexPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Headache index2. Headache-free days3. Highest pain intensity


Risk of bias table


34 / 67



Unclear risk 'Randomly assigned to one of three groups'. Comment: Probably done,no method described.






Low risk Attrition is described, however significant differences betweencompleters and non-completers are not reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Data were completely reported.

McGrath 1992Methods RCT. Three arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, three months and one-

year follow-up.

Participants End of treatment n = 74Start of Treatment n = 87Sex: 63F, 24MMean age = Not given: range 11-18 yearsSource = Paediatricians and family physiciansDiagnosis = MigraineMean years of pain not given: minimum three months

Interventions "Therapist administered cognitive behavioural/stress coping/ relaxation training""Self-administered cognitive behavioural/ stress coping/ relaxation training""Information and support"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache diaryPrimary Disability Outcome: NonePrimary Mood Outcome: Depression1. Headache index2. Efficiency of treatment3. Poznanski Depression Scale


Risk of bias table


35 / 67



Unclear risk 'Randomised to 1 of the 8-week treatments'. Comment: Probably done,no method described.






Unclear risk Attrition is described, however significant differences betweencompleters and non-completers are not reported.


Osterhaus 1997Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment and one-year follow-up.

Participants End of treatment n = 39, one-year follow-up n = 21.

Start of Treatment n = 39Sex: 29F, 10MMean age = 15.2 (sd 3.3)Source = Newspaper articleDiagnosis = Headache (migraine, tension-type, mixed)Mean years of pain = 5.6

Interventions "Behavioural treatment package""Waiting list control"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache indexPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Headache index2. Headache frequency3. Headache duration4. Headache intensity


Risk of bias table


36 / 67



Unclear risk 'The participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups'.Comment: Probably done, no method described.






High risk Attrition is not described.


Palermo 2009Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment and post-treatment.


Start of treatment n = 48Sex: 35F, 13MMean age = 14.8 (2.0)Source = Medical centre in the Pacific Northwest USADiagnosis = Headache (25% of the sample), abdominal pain (50% of the sample), ormusculoskeletal pain (25% of the sample).Mean years of pain = 30 months

Interventions "Internet-delivered family cognitive-behavioural therapy""Wait-list control group"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Daily Pain Intensity NRS (averaged over seven days)Primary Disability Outcome: Child Acitivty and Limitations InterviewPrimary Mood Outcome: Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale1. Daily pain intensity NRS (averaged over seven days)2. Usual pain intensity over the past month NRS2. Child Activity Limitations Interview3. Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale4. Protect sub scale from Adult Responses to Children's Symtpoms5. Treatment acceptability and satisfaction


Risk of bias table


37 / 67



Low risk 'A fixed allocation randomisation scheme was used. Specifically, we usedblocked randomisation with blocks of 10 to assign participants to the twotreatment conditions during the course of randomisation. An online randomnumber generator was used to produce the blocked randomisation. Groupassignments were identified by ID number in sealed envelopes. Followingcompletion of all pre-treatment assessments, a research coordinatoropened the sealed envelope to reveal the group assignment.’ Comment:probably done


Low risk 'A fixed allocation randomisation scheme was used. Specifically, we usedblocked randomisation with blocks of 10 to assign participants to the twotreatment conditions during the course of randomisation. An online randomnumber generator was used to produce the blocked randomisation. Groupassignments were identified by ID number in sealed envelopes. Followingcompletion of all pre-treatment assessments, a research coordinatoropened the sealed envelope to reveal the group assignment.’ Comment:probably done


Unclearrisk

No description found in text. Comment: Probably not done.


Unclearrisk

Attrition is described, however significant differences between completersand non-completers were not described.


Passchier 1990


38 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment.

Participants End of treatment n = 119Start of Treatment n = 119Sex: 65F, 54MMean age = 13.7 (sd 1.4)Source = SchoolDiagnosis = Headache (at least weekly)Mean years of pain = None given

Interventions "Progressive relaxation training""Placebo physical concentration training"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache intensityPrimary Disability Outcome: School problemsPrimary Mood Outcome: Anxiety (Fear of Failure)1. Headache intensity2. Headache frequency3. Headache duration4. School problems (composite)5. Fear of failure (from Hermans Debilitating Anxiety of Achievement Motivation Test)


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'The 19 classes of the participating teachers were allocated at random toa Progressive Relaxation Training or a Placebo Training group.'Comment: Probably done, no method described.






Low risk No dropouts were reported.


Richter 1986


39 / 67

Methods RCT. Three arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, posttreatment

Participants End of treatment n = 43Start of Treatment n = 51Sex: 34F, 17MMean age = 12.9Source = Referred by physicians to children's hospitalDiagnosis = MigraineMean years of pain = Not given: most over two years

Interventions "Relaxation training""Cognitive coping""Attention control"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Headache diaryPrimary Disability Outcome: NonePrimary Mood Outcome: Child Depression rating scale1. Headache index (intensity, frequency, duration, medication taken: diary)2. State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) or State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children(STAI-C)3. Children's Depression Rating Scale


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'And randomly assigned to treatment'. Comment: Probably done, nomethod described.






Low risk 'Over the course of treatment there were 8 drop-outs. A chi-squareanalysis comparing attrition rates across interventions was not significant.'Comment: Attrition adequately reported and no significant differencesbetween completers and non-completers reported.


Robins 2005


40 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment (three months after start),six to twelve months.

Participants End of treatment n = 69Start of treatment n = 86Sex: 39F, 30MMean age = 11.4 (sd 2.4)Source = Paediatric gastroenterology outpatient clinic of children's hospitalDiagnosis = Recurrent abdominal painMean years of pain = Not stated

Interventions "Short term cognitive behavioural family treatment plus standard medical care""Standard medical care"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Abdominal Pain IndexPrimary Disability Outcome: Functional Disability InventoryPrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Abdominal Pain Index2. Child Somatization Inventory3. Functional Disability Inventory4. Abdominal Pain Index (parent)5. Child Somatization Inventory (parent)


Risk of bias table



Low risk 'The remaining sample of 86 were randomly assigned using a coin-flipmethod.' Comment: Probably done.






Unclear risk Attrition is described, however significant differences betweencompleters and non-completers were not described.


Sanders 1994


41 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, six months, one year.

Participants End of treatment n = 44Start of Treatment n = 44Sex: 28F, 16MMean age = 9.2 (sd 1.9)Source = Not givenDiagnosis = Recurrent abdominal painMean years of pain = 3.7

Interventions "Cognitive behaviour therapy""Standard paediatric care"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: pain diaryPrimary Disability Outcome: Interference with child activityPrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Pain intensity diary2. Parent observation of child pain behaviour (POR)3. Child behaviour checklist (CBCL '83)4. Relapse vs pain-free5. Interference with child activity (child report)6. Interference with child activity (parent report)


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'The study used a randomised group comparison design with twotreatment conditions.’ Comment: method not described






High risk Attrition was not described and significant differences betweencompleters and non-completers were not reported.


Sartory 1998


42 / 67

Methods RCT. Three arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment (four weeks after end ofintervention), eight months follow-up.

Participants End of treatment n = 43Start of Treatment n = 43Sex: 17F, 26MMean age = 11.3 (sd 2.1)source = Outpatient clinic of paediatric hospital and advertising in pressDiagnosis = MigraineMean years of pain = 4.6

Interventions "Cephalic vasomotor training + stress management""Relaxation training + stress management""Beta-blocker (metoprolol)"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: headache indexPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: mood faces scale1. Headache index2. Episodes/week when analgesics taken3. Mood faces scale, 5-point smiling - upset


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'Children were allocated randomly to one of three treatment groups'.Comment: Probably done, no method described.






Unclear risk Attrition is described, however significant differences betweencompleters and non-completers were not described.


Scharff 2002


43 / 67

Methods RCT. Three arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, three months, sixmonths, twelve months.

Participants End of treatment n = 34Start of Treatment n = 36Sex: 24F, 12MMean age 12.8 (sd 2.4)Source = Children's hospitalDiagnosis = Migraine (all), tension-type headache (minority)Mean years of pain = 2.4 (sd 2.1)

Interventions "Handwarming biofeedback and stress management""Handcooling attention control""Waitlist control"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: headache indexPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: Child Depression Inventory1. Headache index2. Days with headache3. Highest headache rating4. Child Depression Inventory (CDI)5. Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC)


Risk of bias table



Low risk 'At the assessment visit children were randomised into three groupsusing a randomisation table'. Comment: probably done.






Low risk Attrition is described, there were no significant differences betweencompleters and non-completers.


Stinson 2010


44 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment and post-treatment

Participants End of treatment n = 39Start of treatment n = 46Sex: 31F, 15MMean age = 14.6 (sd 1.5)Source = Four paediatric tertiary care centresDiagnosis = Juvenile Idiopathic ArthritisMean years of pain = 6.4 (sd 4.6)

Interventions "Internet treatment""Attentional control group"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Recall Pain InventoryPrimary Disability Outcome: Juvenile Arthritis Quality of Life QuestionnairePrimary Mood Outcome: Perceived Severity of Stress Questionnaire1. Recall Pain Inventory2. Juvenile Arthritis Quality of Life Questionnaire3. Perceived Severity of Stress Questionnaire4. Medical Issues, Exercise, Pain and Social Support Questionnaire5. Children's Arthritis Self-Efficacy scale6. JIA-specific Child Adherence Report Questionnaire7. Parent Adherence Report Questionnaire


Risk of bias table



Low risk 'A fixed allocation randomisation scheme was used. Specificallly, blockedrandomisation was employed. An online random number generator wasused to produce the blocked randomisation. Group assignments wereidentified by ID number in sealed envelopes during the recruitment period.'Comment: Probably done.


Low risk 'A fixed allocation randomisation scheme was used. Specificallly, blockedrandomisation was employed. An online random number generator wasused to produce the blocked randomisation. Group assignments wereidentified by ID number in sealed envelopes during the recruitment period.'Comment: Probably done.




Unclear risk Attrition is reported. However, significant differences between completersand non-completers were not reported.



45 / 67

Trautmann 2010Methods RCT. Three arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, six months.

Participants End of treatment n = 55, Follow-up n = 40

Start of treatment n = 68Sex: 36F, 30MMean age = 12.7 (sd 2.2)Source = Newspaper adverts and websitesDiagnosis = Headache (migraine, tension type headache or combined headache)Mean years of pain = 2.8 (sd 3.0)

Interventions "Cognitive behavioural therapy, self-help and management""Applied relaxation group""Education"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Pain DiaryPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: Children's Depression Inventory1. Pain diary2. Children's depression inventory3. Pain Catastrophising scale4. Health-related quality of life (KINDL-R)5. Strength and difficulties questionnaire


Risk of bias table



Low risk 'All participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions.The randomly ordered list of groups was used to assign sequentiallyenrolled participants to two intervention groups and the active controlcondition.' Comment: Probably done.


Low risk 'The first author randomly selected participants according to a computer-generated randomisation list by using the 'select cases' random selectionoption.' Comment: Probably done.




Low risk Attrition is described. 'Furthermore, no significant differences were foundbetween dropouts and completers'.

Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Data were fully extracted.

van Tilburg 2009


46 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment,six months.

Participants End of treatment n = 29, Follow-up n = 24Start of treatment n = 34Sex: 25F, 9MMean age = 10.25 (sd 2.6)Source = Univeristy of North Carolina and Duke University Medical CentresDiagnosis = Functional abdominal painMean years of pain = unknown

Interventions "Guided imagery treatment""Standard medical care"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Abdominal Pain IndexPrimary Disability Outcome: Functional Disability InventoryPrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Abdominal pain index2. Functional disability inventory3. School attendance4. Pediatric quality of life inventory5. Global rating of change in abdominal pain6. Treatment compliance7. Questionnaire of paediatric gastrointestinal symptoms8. Health care utilisation


Risk of bias table



Unclear risk 'Thirty-four children, were assigned randomly to receive 2 months ofstandard medical care with or without home-based, guided imagerytreatment.' Comment: Probably done, method not described.


Low risk 'Children picked a closed envelope that determined whether they wouldreceive standard medical care with or without guided imagery treatment.'Comment: Probably done.




Unclear risk Attrition is described, however significant differences between completersand non-completers are not reported.


Vlieger 2007


47 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, six months, one year.

Participants End of treatment n = 51Start of Treatment n = 52Sex: 39F, 13MMean age = 13.3 (sd 2.7)Source = Paediatric gastroenterology dept in hospitalDiagnosis = Functional abdominal pain (N = 31) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (N= 22)Mean years of pain = 3.4

Interventions "Gut-directed hypnotherapy""Standard medical care plus supportive therapy"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: weekly pain intensityPrimary Disability Outcome: nonePrimary Mood Outcome: none1. Total pain intensity over 1 week (9-point faces affective pain intensity scale, reducedto 0-3 points hence 0-21)2. Total pain frequency over 1 week (frequency reduced to 0-3 scale per day)3. Associated symptoms (nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, flatus, nocturnal pain, painon wakening, pain related to meals)


Risk of bias table



Low risk 'Patients were randomly allocated using a computerised random-numbergenerator for concealment to either HT or standard medical care.'Comment: Probably done.


Low risk 'Patients were randomly allocated using a computerised random-numbergenerator for concealment to either HT or standard medical care.'Comment: Probably done.


Low risk 'Pain diaries were analysed by S. W. (medical student), who was blindedto the treatment arm.' Comment: Probably done.


Unclear risk Attrition is described, however significant differences betweencompleters and non-completers are not reported.


Wicksell 2009


48 / 67

Methods RCT. Two arms. Assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, 3.5 months, 6.8 months.

Participants End of treatment n = 29, Follow-up 3.5 months n = 24, Follow-up 6.8 months = 24Start of treatment n = 32Sex: 25F, 7MMean age = 14.8 (sd 2.4)Source = Astrid Lindgren Children's Hospital, Karolinska University HospitalDiagnosis = Mixed pain (headache, back/neck, widespread musculoskeletal, complexregional pain syndrome, visceral, lower extremities, postherpetic type cheek pain.Mean years of pain = 2.7

Interventions "Exposure and acceptance""Mulitdiciplinary treatment and amitriptyline"

Outcomes Primary Pain Outcome: Pain IntensityPrimary Disability Outcome: Functional Disability InventoryPrimary Mood Outcome: Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale forChildren1. Pain intensity2. Functional disability inventory3. Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children4. Multidimensional Pain Inventory (interference scale)5. Brief pain inventory (pain interference items)6. Pain and impairment relationship scale7. Short form-36 health survey8. Tampa scale of Kinesiophobia9. Pain coping questionnaire (internalising and catastrophising)10. 5 author-generated questions on pain-related discomfort


Risk of bias table


49 / 67



Low risk 'A total of 32 participants were included in the study and randomised toone of the two treatment conditions. A simple randomisation techniquewas used.' Comment: Probably done.


Low risk 'A sealed envelope (prepared by a secretary blind to the objective of thestudy) containing a code for 'exposure and acceptance' or 'MDT' wasopened, assigning the participant to one of the treatment conditions.'Comment: probably done.


Low risk 'All assessments were conducted by a nurse who was not involved indelivering the treatment protocol.' Comment: Probably done.


Unclear risk Attrition is described, however significant differences between completersand non-completers are not reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Data are fully reported.

FootnotesCBT: Cognitive behavioural therapyFDI-C: Functional Disability Inventory-ChildrenJPFM: Juvenile Primary FibromyalgiaNRS: Numeric rating scalePEDSQL:Paediatric Scale Quality of Life InventoryRCT: Randomised controlled trialSCD: Sickle cell diseaseVAS: Visual analogue scale

Characteristics of excluded studies Fentress 1986Reason for exclusion Inadequate sample size (n < 10 in one arm of study design)

Kroener-Herwig 1998Reason for exclusion Inadequate sample size (n < 10 in one arm of study design)

Larsson 1986Reason for exclusion Inadequate sample size (n < 10 in one arm of study design)

Olness 1987Reason for exclusion Insufficient psychological treatment

Sanders 1989Reason for exclusion Inadequate sample size (n < 10 in one arm of study design)

Trautmann 2008Reason for exclusion Inadequate sample size (n < 10 in one arm of study design)

Vlieger 2012Reason for exclusion Follow-up period more than one year

Weydert 2006


50 / 67

Reason for exclusion Inadequate sample size (n < 10 in one arm of study design)

Youssef 2009Reason for exclusion Inadequate sample size (n < 10 in one arm of study design)

Footnotes

Characteristics of studies awaiting classification Footnotes

Characteristics of ongoing studies Footnotes

Summary of findings tables1 Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (headache) in children and adolescents


51 / 67

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (headache) in children and adolescents

Patient or population: Children and adolescents with chronic headacheSettings: Community and secondary careIntervention: Psychological therapies

Outcomes Illustrative probable outcomes* (95% CI) Relativeeffect(95% CI)and NNT

No ofParticipants(studies)

Quality of theevidence(GRADE)

Comments

Probableoutcome withincontrol

Probable outcome withinintervention

Control Psychological therapies

Pain 170 per 1000 492 per 1000(381 to 632)

RR 2.9 (2.25 to3.73)NNT 2.72(2.32 to3.29)

748(18 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝Moderate 1,2

Results were statisticallysignificant

Pain (atfollow-up)

167 per 1000 400 per 1000(287 to 525)

RR 2.4 (1.72 to3.15)NNT 2.01(1.62 to2.64)

196(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝Low 1,3,4

Results were statisticallysignificant

Disability The mean disability in theintervention groups was0.3 standard deviationslower(0.85 lower to 0.24 higher)

108(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝Moderate 5

SMD -0.3 (-0.85 to 0.24)Results were notsignificant

Disability (atfollow-up)

The mean disability (atfollow-up) in theintervention groups was0.45 standard deviationslower(1.27 lower to 0.36 higher)

24(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝Low 3

SMD -0.45 (-1.27 to 0.36)Insufficient evidence todraw conclusions

Mood The mean mood in theintervention groups was0.07 standard deviationshigher(0.3 lower to 0.45 higher)

204(5 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕High

SMD 0.07 (-0.3 to 0.45)Results were notsignificant

Mood (atfollow-up)

The mean mood (atfollow-up) in theintervention groups was0.57 standard deviationslower(1.09 to 0.04 lower)

59(2 studies)


SMD -0.57 (-1.09 to -0.04) Insufficient evidenceto draw conclusions

*The basis for the probable outcome within control (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided infootnotes. The probable outcome within intervention (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the probable outcomewithin the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; NNT: Numbers needed to treat

GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHigh quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and maychange the estimate.Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and islikely to change the estimate.Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

FootnotesAssessments were made following guidance from the Cochrane Handbook (Higgins 2011). Outcomes were marked on fivecategories; Llmitations in the design and implementation, indirectness of evidence, limitations in the design andimplementation, unexplained heterogeneity or inconsistency of results, and high probability of publication bias. Outcomes


52 / 67

were downgraded to moderate if they were marked down in one category, and to 'low' if they were marked down in morethan one category. This is with the exception of 'Disability at follow-up' which was marked 'low' due to only having one studywithin the analysis.1 Limitations in the design and implementation: proportion of studies had poor descriptions of randomisation2 Limitations in the design and implementation: proportion of studies did not report follow-up data. Unclear whether earlierstudies used ITT analyses3 Imprecision of results: small sample sizes4 Unexplained heterogeneity or inconsistency of results: wide confidence intervals5 Unexplained heterogeneity or inconsistency of results: I squared = > 45%, Heterogeneity Tau = P > 0.05, variation can beexplained

2 Psychological therapies for the management of chronic (non-headache) in children and adolescents


53 / 67

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic (non-headache) in children and adolescents

Patient or population: Children and adolescents with chronic pain (non-headache)Settings: Community and secondary careIntervention: Psychological therapies

Outcomes Illustrative probable outcomes* (95% CI) Relativeeffect(95% CI)and NNT

No ofParticipants(studies)

Quality of theevidence(GRADE)

Comments

Probableoutcome withincontrol

Probable outcome withinintervention

Control Psychological therapies

Pain The mean pain in theintervention groups was0.51 standard deviationslower(0.8 to 0.22 lower)

709(12 studies)


SMD -0.51 (-0.8 to -0.22)Results were statisticallysignificant

Pain (atfollow-up)

The mean pain (at follow-up) in the interventiongroups was0.17 standard deviationslower(0.6 lower to 0.26 higher)

357(5 studies)


SMD -0.17 (-0.6 to 0.26)Results were notsignificant

Disability The mean disability in theintervention groups was0.27 standard deviationslower(0.45 to 0.08 lower)

625(10 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕High

SMD -0.27 (-0.45 to -0.08) Results werestatistically significant

Disability (atfollow-up)

The mean disability (atfollow-up) in theintervention groups was0.11 standard deviationslower(0.43 lower to 0.21 higher)

325(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕High

SMD -0.11 (-0.43 to0.21) Results were notsignificant

Mood The mean mood in theintervention groups was0.14 standard deviationslower(0.42 lower to 0.15 higher)

435(6 studies)



Mood (atfollow-up)

The mean mood (at follow-up) in the interventiongroups was0.09 standard deviationslower(0.32 lower to 0.14 higher)

292(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕High


*The basis for the probable outcome within control (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided infootnotes. The probable outcome within intervention (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the probable outcomewithin the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; NNT: Numbers needed to treat

GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHigh quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and maychange the estimate.Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and islikely to change the estimate.Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

FootnotesGRADE assessments were made following guidance from the Cochrane Handbook (Higgins 2011). Outcomes were markedon five categories; Llmitations in the design and implementation, indirectness of evidence, limitations in the design andimplementation, unexplained heterogeneity or inconsistency of results, and high probability of publication bias. Outcomeswere downgraded to moderate if they were marked down in one category, and to 'low' if they were marked down in morethan one category. This is with the exception of 'Disability at follow-up' which was marked 'low' due to only having one study


54 / 67

within the analysis.1 Unexplained heterogeneity or inconsistency of results: I squared = > 45%, Heterogeniety Tau = P > 0.05, variance can beexplained

Additional tables 1 Duration of treatment and setting by condition

Headache studies

Author Illness Treatment duration (Hrs) Setting

Abram 2007 Headache 1.5 Clinic

Barry 1997 Headache 3 Unknown

Bussone 1998 Headache 7 Clinic

Connelly 2006 Headache Unknown Home - CDROM

Fichtel 2001 Headache 6.75 Clinic

Griffiths 1996 Headache 12 Clinic/Home

Hicks 2006* Mixed Unknown Home - Internet

Kroener-Herwig 2002 Headache 12 Clinic

Labbe 1984 Headache 6.7 Clinic

Labbe 1995 Headache 7.5 Clinic

Larsson 1987a Headache 6.75 School

Larsson 1987b Headache 5 School

Larsson 1990 Headache 1.7 Home

Larsson 1996 Headache 3.3 Clinic

McGrath 1988 Headache 6 Unknown

McGrath 1992 Headache 8 Home/Clinic

Osterhaus 1997 Headache 9.3 Clinic

Palermo 2009* Mixed 4 Home - Internet

Passchier 1990 Headache 2.5 School

Richter 1986 Headache 9 Unknown

Sartory 1998 Headache Unknown Clinic

Scharff 2002 Headache 4 Clinic

Trautmann 2010 Headache Unknown Home - Internet

Wicksell 2009* Mixed 10 Clinic

Non-headache studies

Author Illness Treatment duration (Hrs) Setting

Alfven 2007 RAP Unknown Clinic

Barakat 2010 SCD 6 Home

Duarte 2006 RAP 3.3 Unknown

Gil 1997 SCD 0.75 Clinic

Hicks 2006* Headache + RAP Unknown Home - Internet

Humphreys 2000 RAP Unknown Clinic

Kashikar-Zuck 2005 Fibromyalgia Unknown Clinic

Kashikar-Zuck 2012 Fibromyalgia 6 Unknown

Levy 2010 RAP 4 Home/Clinic

Palermo 2009* Mixed 4 Home - Internet


55 / 67

Robins 2005 RAP 3.5 Clinic

Sanders 1994 RAP 6 Clinic

Stinson 2010 JIA 5 Home - Internet

van Tilburg 2009 RAP 1.8 Home

Vlieger 2007 RAP/IBS 5 Clinic

Wicksell 2009* Mixed 10 Clinic

Footnotes*Mixed headache and non-headache studies are entered twice. Recurrent abdominal pain (RAP), Sickle cell disease (SCD),Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

References to studiesIncluded studies Abram 2007Abram HS, Buckloh LM, Schilling LS, Armatti Wiltrout S, Ramirez-Garnica G, Turk WR. A randomized, controlled trail of aneurological and psychoeducational group appointment model for pediatric headaches. Children's Healthcare 2007;36:249-65.

Alfven 2007Alfven G, Lindstrom A. A new method for the treatment of recurrent abdominal pain of prolonged negative stress origin. ActaPediatrica 2007;96:76-81.

Barakat 2010Barakat LP, Schwartz LA, Salamon KS, Radcliffe J. A family-based randomized controlled trial of pain intervention foradolescents with sickle cell disease. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 2010;32(7):540-7.

Barry 1997Barry J, von Baeyer CL. Brief cognitive-behavioral group treatment for children's headache. Clinical Journal of Pain1997;13:215-20.

Bussone 1998Bussone G, Grazzi L, D'Amico D, Leone M, Andrasik F. Biofeedback-assisted relaxation training for young adolescents withtension-type headache: A controlled study. Cephalalgia 1988;18:463-7.

Connelly 2006Connelly M, Rapoff MA, Thompson N, Connelly W. Headstrong: A pilot study of a cd-rom intervention for recurrent pediatricheadache. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2006;31:737-47.

Duarte 2006Duarte MA, Penna FJ, Andrade EM, Cancela CSP, Neto JCA, Barbosa TF. Treatment of nonorganic recurrent abdominalpain: Cognitive-behavioral family intervention. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2006;43:59-64.

Fichtel 2001Fitchel A, Larsson B. Does relaxation treatment have differential effects on migraine and tension-type headache inadolescents. Headache 2001;41:290-6.

Gil 1997Gil KM, Wilson JJ, Edens JL, Workman E, Ready J, Sedway J, et al. Cognitive coping skills training in children with sickle celldisease pain. International Journal of Behavioural Medicine 1997;4:364-77.

Griffiths 1996Griffiths JD, Martin PR. Clinical versus home-based treatment formats for children with chronic headache. The British Journalof Health Psychology 1996;1:151-66.

Hicks 2006Hicks CL, von Baeyer CL, McGrath PJ. Online psychological treatment for pediatric recurrent pain: A randomized evaluation.Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2006;31:724-36.

Humphreys 2000Humphreys PA, Gevirtz RN. Treatment of recurrent abdominal pain: Components analysis of four treatment protocols.Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2000;31:47-51.

Kashikar-Zuck 2005


56 / 67

Kashikar-Zuck S, Swain NF, Jones BA, Graham TB. Efficacy of cognitive-behavioral intervention for juvenile primaryfibromyalgia syndrome. The Journal of Rheumatology 2005;32:1594-602.

Kashikar-Zuck 2012Kashikar-Zuck S, Ting TV, Arnold LM, Bean J, Powers SW, Graham B, et al. Cognitive behavioral therapy for the treatmentof juvenile fibromyalgia. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2012;64(1):297-305.

Kroener-Herwig 2002Kroener-Herwig B, Denecke H. Cognitive-behavioral therapy of pediatric headache: Are there differences in efficacy betweena therapist-administered group training and a self-help format? Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2002;53:1107-14.

Labbe 1984Labbe EE, Williamson DA. Treatment of childhood migraine using autogenic feedback training. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 1984;52(6):968-76.

Labbe 1995Labbe EE. Treatment of childhood migraine with autogenic training and skin temperature biofeedback: a componentanalysis. Headache 1995;35:10-3.

Larsson 1987aLarsson B, Daleflod B, Hakansson L, Melin L. Therapist-assisted versus self-help relaxation treatment of chronic headachesin adolescents: a school-based intervention. Journal of Child Psychology 1987;28(1):127-36.

Larsson 1987bLarsson B, Melin L, Lamminen M, Ullstedt F. A school-based treatment of chronic headaches in adolescents. Journal ofPediatric Psychology 1987;12(4):553-66.

Larsson 1990Larsson B, Melin L, Doberl A. Recurrent tension headache in adolescents treated with self-help relaxation training and amuscle relaxant drug. Headache 1990;30:665-71.

Larsson 1996Larsson B, Carlsson J. A school-based, nurse-administered relaxation training for children with chronic tension-typeheadache. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 1996;21(5):603-14.

Levy 2010Levy RL, Langer SL, Walker LS, Romano JM, Christie DL, Youssef N, et al. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for children withfunctional abdominal pain and their parents decreases pain and other symptoms. American Journal of Gastroenterology2010;105(4):946-56.

McGrath 1988McGrath PJ, Humphreys P, Goodman JT, Keene D, Firestone P, et al. Relaxation prophylaxis for childhood migraine: arandomized placebo-controlled trial. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 1988;30:626-31.

McGrath 1992McGrath PJ, Humphreys P, Keene D, Goodman JT, Lascelles MA, Cunningham SJ, et al. The efficacy and efficiency of aself-administered treatment for adolescent migraine. Pain 1992;49:321-4.

Osterhaus 1997Osterhaus SOL, Lange A, Linssen WHJP, Passchier J. A behavioral treatment of young migrainous and nonmigrainousheadache patients: prediction of treatment success. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 1997;4(4):378-96.

Palermo 2009Palermo TM, Wilson AC, Peters M, Lewandowski A, Somhegyi H. Randomized controlled trial of an internet delivered familycognitive behavioral therapy intervention for children and adolescents with chronic pain. Pain 2009;146(1-2):205-13.

Passchier 1990Passchier J, van den Bree MBM, Emmen HH, Osterhaus SOL, Orlebeke JF, Verhage F. Relaxation training in schoolclasses does not reduce headache complaints. Headache 1990;30:660-4.

Richter 1986Richter IL, McGrath PJ, Humphreys PJ, Goodman JT, Firestone P, Keene D. Cognitive and relaxation treatment of paediatricmigraine. Pain 1986;25:195-203.

Robins 2005Robins PM, Smith SM, Glutting JJ, Bishop CT. A randomized controlled trial of a cognitive-behavioral family intervention forpediatric recurrent abdominal pain. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2005;30:397-408.


57 / 67

Sanders 1994Sanders MR, Shepherd RW, Cleghorn G, Woolford H. The treatment of recurrent abdominal pain in children: a controlledcomparison of cognitive-behavioral family intervention and standard pediatric care. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology 1994;62(2):306-14.

Sartory 1998Sartory G, Muller B, Metsch J, Pothmann R. A comparison of psychological and pharmacological treatment of pediatricmigraine. Behaviour Research and Therapy 1998;36:1155-70.

Scharff 2002Scharff L, Marcus DA, Masek BJ. A controlled study of minimal-contact thermal biofeedback treatment in children withmigraine. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2002;27:109-19.

Stinson 2010Stinson JN, McGrath PJ, Hodnett ED, Feldman BM, Duffy CM, Huber AM, et al. An internet-based self-management programwith telephone support for adolescents with arthritis: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Rheumatology2010;37(9):1944-52.

Trautmann 2010Trautmann E, Kroner-Herwig B. A randomized controlled trial of internet-based self-help training for recurrent headache inchildhood and adolescence. Behaviour Research and Therapy 2010;48:28-37.

van Tilburg 2009van Tilburg MAL, Chitkara DK, Palsson OS, Turner M, Blois-Martin N. Audio-recorded guided imagery treatment reducesfunctional abdominal pain in children: a pilot study. Pediatrics 2009;124(5):e890-7.

Vlieger 2007Vlieger AM, Menko-Frankenhuis C, Wolfkamp SC, Tromp E, Benninga MA. Hypnotherapy for children with functionalabdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2007;133:1430-6.

Wicksell 2009Wicksell RK, Melin L, Lekander M, Olsson GL. Evaluating the effectiveness of exposure and acceptance strategies toimprove functioning and quality of life in longstanding pediatric pain - A randomized controlled trial. Pain 2009;141:248-57.

Excluded studies Fentress 1986Fentress DW, Masek BJ, Mehegan JE, Benson H. Biofeedback and relaxation-response training in the treatment of pediatricmigraine. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 1986;28:139-46.

Kroener-Herwig 1998Kroner-Herwig B, Mohn U, Pothmann R. Comparison of biofeedback and relaxation in the treatment of pediatric headacheand the influence of parent involvement on outcome. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 1998;23:143-57.

Larsson 1986Larsson B, Melin L. Chronic headaches in adolescents: treatment in a school setting with relaxation training as comparedwith information-contact and self-registration. Pain 1986;25:325-36.

Olness 1987Olness K, MacDonald JT, Uden DL. Comparison of self-hypnosis and propranolol in the treatment of juvenile classicmigraine. Pediatrics 1987;79(4):593-7.

Sanders 1989Sanders MR, Rebgetz M, Morrison M, Bor W, Gordon A, Dadds M, et al. Cognitive-behavioral treatment of recurrentnonspecific abdominal pain in children: an analysis of generalization, maintenance, and side effects. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology 1989;57(2):294-300.

Trautmann 2008Trautmann E, Kroner-Herwig B. Internet-based self-help training for children and adolescents with recurrent headache: apilot study. Bheavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 2008;36:241-5.

Vlieger 2012Vlieger AM, Rutten JMTM, Govers AMAO, Frankenhuis C, Benninga MA. Long-term follow-up of gut-directed hypnotherapyvs. standard care in children with functional abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome. American Journal ofGastroenterology 2012;107:627-31.

Weydert 2006Weydert JA, Shapiro DE, Acra SA, Monheim CJ, Chambers AS, Ball TM. Evaluation of guided imagery as treatment for


58 / 67

recurrent abdominal pain in children: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pediatrics 2006;6(29):1-10.

Youssef 2009Youssef NN, Van Tilburg MA, Matta EN, Langseder A, Whitehead WE. Feasibility and efficacy of pilot study investigating aschool nurse administered guided imagery program for childhood functional abdominal pain. Gastroenterology2009;136(5):156-7.

Studies awaiting classification Ongoing studies

Other referencesAdditional references Bursch 1998Bursch B, Walco GA, Zeltzer L. Clinical assessment and management of chronic pain and pain-associated disabilitysyndrome. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 1998;19:45-53.

Cohen 1992Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 1992;112(1):155-9.

Eccleston 2003bEccleston C, Malleson PN, Clinch J, Connell H, Sourbut C. Chronic pain in adolescents: evaluation of a programme ofinterdisciplinary cognitive behaviour therapy. Archives of Diseases in Childhood 2003;88:881-5.

Eccleston 2009aEccleston C, Williams AC de C, Morley S. Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache)in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD007407 DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007407.

Fearon 2001Fearon P, Hotopf M. Relation between headache in childhood and physical and psychiatric symptoms in adulthood: Nationalbirth cohort study. BMJ 2001;322:1145.

Fordyce 1968Fordyce WE, Fowler RS Jr, Lehmann JF, DeLateur BJ. Some implications of learning on problems of chronic pain. Journal ofChronic Disease 1968;21:179-90.

Hermann 1995Hermann C, Kim M, Blanchard EB. Behavioral and prophylactic pharmacological intervention studies of pediatric migraine:an exploratory meta-analysis. Pain 1995;60:239-56.

Higgins 2011Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011].The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011, 2012.

Holden 1999Holden EW, Deichmann, MM, Levy J. Empirically supported treatments in pediatric psychology: recurrent pediatricheadache. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 1999;24:91-109.

Huertas-Ceballos 2008Huertas-Ceballos A, Logan S, Bennett C, Macarthur C. Psychosocial interventions for recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) andirritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in childhood. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD003014DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003014.pub2.

Janicke 1999Janicke DM, Finney JQ. Empirically supported treatments in pediatric psychology: recurrent abdominal pain. Journal ofPediatric Psychology 1999;24:115-27.

Keefe 2004Keefe FJ, Rumble ME, Scipio CD, Giordano LA, Perri LM. Psychological aspects of persistent pain: current state of thescience. Journal of Pain 2004;5:195-211.

Kibby 1998Kibby MY, Tyc VL, Mulhern RK. Effectiveness of psychological intervention for children and adolescents with chronic medicalillness: a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Reviews 1998;18:103-17.

Masek 1999Masek BJ. Commentary: The pediatric migraine connection. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 1999;24:110.


59 / 67

McGrath 1990McGrath PA. Pain in Children: Nature, Assessment & Treatment. The Guilford Press, 1990.

McGrath 1999aMcGrath PJ, Finley GA. Chronic and Recurrent Pain in Children and Adolescents. Seattle: IASP Press, 1999.

McGrath 2008McGrath PJ, Walco G, Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Brown MT, Davidson K, et al. Core outcome domains and measures forpediatric acute and chronic/recurrent pain clinical trials: PedIMMPACT recommendations. Journal of Pain 2008;9:771-83.

Palermo 2000Palermo, TM. Impact of recurrent and chronic pain on child and family daily functioning: A critical review of the literature.Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 2000;21:58-69.

Palermo 2005Palermo TM, Chambers CT. Parent and family factors in pediatric chronic pain and disability: An integrative approach. Pain2005;119:1-4.

Palermo 2008Palermo TM, Long A, Lewandowski A, Drotar D, Quittner A, Walker L. Evidence based assessment of health related qualityof life and functional impairment. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2008;33:983-96.

Palermo 2012Palermo TP. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain in Children and Adolescents. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 2012.

Perquin 2000Perquin CW, Hazebroek-Kampscheur AAJM, Hunfeld JAM, Bohnene, AM, van Suijlekom-Smit LWA, Passchier J, et al. Painin children and adolescents: a common experience. Pain 2000;87:51-8.

Perquin 2001Perquin CW, Hazebroek-Kampscheur AAJM, Hunfeld JAM, van Suijlekom-Smit LWA, Passchier J, van der Wouden JC.Chronic pain among children and adolescents: physician consultation and medication use. Clinical Journal of Pain2001;16:229-35.

Shojania 2007Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Jun J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? Asurvival analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 2007;147:224-33.

Stanford 2008Stanford EA, Chambers CT, Biesanz JC, Chen E. The frequency, trajectories and predictors of adolescent recurrent pain: Apopulation-based approach. Pain 2008;138:11-21.

Trautmann 2006Trautmann E, Lackschewitz H, Kroner-Herwig B. Psychological treatment of recurrent headache in children and adolescents--a meta-analysis. Cephalalgia 2006;26(12):1411-26.

Walco 1999Walco GA, Sterling CM, Conte PM, Engel RG. Empirically supported treatments in pediatric psychology: disease relatedpain. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 1999;24:155-67.

Walker 1989Walker L, Greene J. Children with recurrent abdominal pain and their parents: more somatic complaints, anxiety, anddepression than other patient families? Journal of Pediatric Psychology 1989;14:231-93.

Weydert 2003Weydert JA, Ball TM, Davis MF. Systematic review of treatments for recurrent abdominal pain. Pediatrics 2003;111:e1-11.

Yates 2005Yates SL, Morley S, Eccleston E, Williams A CdeC. A scale for rating the quality of psychological trials for pain. Pain2005;117:314-25.

Other published versions of this review Eccleston 2003aEccleston C, Yorke L, Morley S, Williams ACdeC, Mastroyannopoulou, A. Psychological therapies for the management ofchronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. Art. No.:CD003968 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003968.


60 / 67

Eccleston 2009Eccleston C, Palermo TM, Williams ACDC, Lewandowski A, Morley S. Psychological therapies for the management ofchronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. Art. No.:CD003968 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003968.pub2.

Classification pending referencesMikkelsson 1997Mikkelsson M, Salminen JJ, Kautiainen. Non-specific musculoskeletal pain in preadolescents. Prevalence and 1-yearpersistence. Pain 1997;73:29-35.

Data and analyses 1 Treatment versus control (headache) post-treatment.Outcome or Subgroup Studies Participants Statistical Method Effect Estimate1.1 Pain 18 748 Risk Ratio(M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 2.90[2.25, 3.73]

1.2 Disability 3 108 Std. Mean Difference(IV, Random,95% CI) -0.30[-0.85, 0.24]

1.3 Mood 5 204 Std. Mean Difference(IV, Random,95% CI) -0.16[-0.45, 0.13]

2 Treatment versus control (headache) follow-upOutcome or Subgroup Studies Participants Statistical Method Effect Estimate2.1 Pain 6 196 Risk Ratio(M-H, Random, 95% CI) 3.34[2.01, 5.53]


2.3 Mood 2 59 Std. Mean Difference(IV, Random,95% CI) -0.60[-1.13, -0.07]

3 Treatment versus control (non-headache) post-treatmentOutcome or Subgroup Studies Participants Statistical Method Effect Estimate

3.1 Pain 12 709 Std. Mean Difference(IV, Random,95% CI) -0.55[-0.84, -0.26]

3.2 Disability 9 588 Std. Mean Difference(IV, Random,95% CI) -0.29[-0.49, -0.10]


4 Treatment versus control (non-headache) follow-upOutcome or Subgroup Studies Participants Statistical Method Effect Estimate

4.1 Pain 5 357 Std. Mean Difference(IV, Random,95% CI) -0.17[-0.60, 0.26]



FiguresFigure 1

Caption

viewGraph?reviewId=028100012009000889&versionNo=10.0&compId=CMP-001&outcomeId=CMP-001.01&graphType=1













61 / 67

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentagesacross all included studies.

Figure 2


62 / 67

CaptionMethodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each includedstudy.

Figure 3 (Analysis 1.1)

CaptionForest plot of comparison: 1 Treatment vs control (headache) post-treatment, outcome: 1.1 Pain.

Figure 4

Caption

Figure 5 (Analysis 3.1)


63 / 67

CaptionForest plot of comparison: 3 Treatment vs control (non-headache) post-treatment, outcome: 3.1 Pain.

Sources of support Internal sources

No sources of support provided

External sourcesNew Source of support, Not specified

Feedback Appendices 1 Search StrategiesMedline via Ovid search strategy1. exp child/2. Infant/3. Adolescent/4. (child$ or adolescent$ or infant$ or juvenil$ or pediatric$ or paediatric$ or "young person$" or "young people" or youth$ or"young adult$").ab,ti,kf.5. 1 or 2 or 3 or 46. exp Psychology/7. exp Psychotherapy/8. exp Behavior Therapy/9. (psycholog$ or (behavio?r and therapy) or hypnos$ or relaxation$ or ((family or color or colour or music or play) adjtherap$) or imagery or cogniti$ or psychotherap$).ab,ti,kf.10. 6 or 7 or 8 or 911. (pain$ or headache$ or "head ache$" or head-ache$ or migraine$ or cephalalgi$ or "stomach ache$" or "tummy ache$"or "abdominal ache$" or "belly ache$" or earache$ or ear-ache$ or toothache$ or tooth-ache$ or odontalgi$ or dysmenorrh$or neuralgi$).ab,ti,kf.12. exp Pain/13. exp Headache Disorders/14. 11 or 12 or 1315. 5 and 10 and 14

Cochrane sensitive search strategy filter for RCTs (OVID version for MEDLINE searches)Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomized trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity maximising version(2008 revision) as referenced in Chapter 6.4.11 and detailed in boxes 6.4.c of The Cochrane Handbook for SystematicReviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008].1. randomized controlled trial.pt.2. controlled clinical trial.pt.


64 / 67

3. randomized.ab.4. placebo.ab.5. drug therapy.fs.6. randomly.ab.7. trial.ab.8. groups.ab.9. or/1-810. humans.sh.11. 9 and 10

EMBASE via Ovid search strategy1. Child/2. Infant/3. Adolescent/4. (child$ or adolescent$ or infant$ or juvenil$ or pediatric$ or paediatric$ or "young person$" or "young people" or youth$ or"young adult$").ab,ti.5. 1 or 2 or 3 or 46. exp PSYCHOLOGY/7. exp PSYCHOTHERAPY/8. behavior therapy/9. (psycholog$ or (behavio?r and therapy) or hypnos$ or relaxation$ or ((family or color or colour or music or play) adjtherap$) or imagery or cogniti$ or psychotherap$).ab,ti.10. 6 or 7 or 8 or 911. (pain$ or headache$ or "head ache$" or head-ache$ or migraine$ or cephalalgi$ or "stomach ache$" or "tummy ache$"or "abdominal ache$" or "belly ache$" or earache$ or ear-ache$ or toothache$ or tooth-ache$ or odontalgi$ or dysmenorrh$or neuralgi$).ab,ti.12. exp Pain/13. exp "Headache and Facial Pain"/14. 11 or 12 or 1315. 5 and 10 and 14

The above subject search was linked to the following filter for EMBASE via OVID1. random$.ti,ab.2. factorial$.ti,ab.3. (crossover$ or cross over$ or cross-over$).ti,ab.4. placebo$.ti,ab.5. (doubl$ adj blind$).ti,ab.6. (singl$ adj blind$).ti,ab.7. assign$.ti,ab.8. allocat$.ti,ab.9. volunteer$.ti,ab.10. CROSSOVER PROCEDURE.sh.11. DOUBLE-BLIND PROCEDURE.sh.12. RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL.sh.13. SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE.sh.14. or/1-1315. ANIMAL/ or NONHUMAN/ or ANIMAL EXPERIMENT/16. HUMAN/17. 16 and 1518. 15 not 1719. 14 not 18

PsychInfo via OVID1. (child$ or adolescent$ or infant$ or juvenil$ or pediatric$ or paediatric$ or "young person$" or "young people" or youth$ or"young adult$").ab,ti.2. exp PSYCHOLOGY/3. exp PSYCHOTHERAPY/


65 / 67

4. behavior therapy/5. (psycholog$ or (behavio?r and therapy) or hypnos$ or relaxation$ or ((family or color or colour or music or play) adjtherap$) or imagery or cogniti$ or psychotherap$).ab,ti.6. 2 or 3 or 4 or 57. (pain$ or headache$ or "head ache$" or head-ache$ or migraine$ or cephalalgi$ or "stomach ache$" or "tummy ache$" or"abdominal ache$" or "belly ache$" or earache$ or ear-ache$ or toothache$ or tooth-ache$ or odontalgi$ or dysmenorrh$ orneuralgi$).ab,ti.8. exp Pain/9. Headache/10. Migraine Headache/11. Muscle Contraction Headache/12. 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 1113. 1 and 6 and 12

Graphs1 - Treatment versus control (headache) post-treatment.


66 / 67

2 - Treatment versus control (headache) follow-up

3 - Treatment versus control (non-headache) post-treatment


67 / 67

4 - Treatment versus control (non-headache) follow-up

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults

Documents

Transcript of Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults