Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings.
| Psychological therapies compared with any control for children and adolescents with chronic pain conditions (mixed) | |||||
|
Patient or population: Children and adolescents with chronic pain Settings: Community and hospitals Intervention: Psychological therapies (cognitive behavioural therapy or behavioural therapy) Comparison: Any control (active, treatment‐as‐usual, wait‐list) | |||||
| Outcomes | Probable outcome with control | Probable outcome with intervention | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments |
|
Pain Post‐treatment Lower scores = lower reported pain intensity |
The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 0.43 lower (95% CI ‐0.67 to ‐0.19) | 1210 participants (16 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowd,f | ||
|
Pain Follow‐up Lower scores = lower reported pain intensity |
The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 0.08 lower (95% CI ‐0.30 to 0.13) | 763 participants (9 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowb,c,e,f | ||
|
Disability Post‐treatment Lower scores = lower reported disability |
The mean disability in the intervention group was 0.34 lower (95% CI ‐0.54 to ‐0.15) | 1226 participants (14 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowc,f | ||
|
Disability Follow‐up Lower scores = lower reported disability |
The mean disability in the intervention group was 0.27 lower (95% CI ‐0.49 to ‐0.06) | 866 participants (9 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowc,e | ||
|
Anxiety Post‐treatment Lower scores = lower reported anxiety |
The mean anxiety in the intervention group was 0.16 lower (95% CI ‐0.29 to ‐0.03) | 883 participants (8 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowf | ||
|
Anxiety Follow‐up Lower scores = lower reported anxiety |
The mean anxiety in the intervention group was 0.01 lower (95% CI ‐0.20 to 0.18) | 805 participants (8 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowb,f | ||
|
Depression Post‐treatment Lower scores = lower reported depression |
The mean disability in the intervention group was 0.05 lower (95% CI ‐0.23 to 0.12) | 757 participants (8 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ verylowb,e,f | ||
| CI: Confidence interval. | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High‐quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect; Moderate‐quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different; Low‐quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect; Very low‐quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | |||||
a50 to 75% risk of bias ratings were unclear/high.
bConfidence intervals were wide.
cHeterogeneity (I2) was 46 to 65%.
dHeterogeneity (I2) was 66 to 100%.
e50 to 75% of studies eligible to be included in the analysis were not included in the analysis.
fAsymmetrical funnel plots suggesting publication bias.