Date	Event	Description
27 July 2017	Amended	Author deceased. See Published notes.
23 March 2016	Amended	Amended declarations of interest section (see Declarations of interest).
19 December 2012	Amended	Minor correction to the PLS.
13 July 2012	New search has been performed	We included 12 new trials from two new searches (Bliokas 2007; Ehrenborg 2010; Glombiewski 2010b; Leeuw 2008; Lindell 2008; Litt 2009; Morone 2008; Schmidt 2011; Thorsell 2011; Van Koulil 2010; Wetherell 2011; Zautra 2008). Thirty four trials included in the previous version were excluded (Astin 2003; Babu 2007; Becker 2000; Bradley 1987; Buhrman 2004Carson 2005; Cook 1998; Dworkin 1994; Dworkin 2002b; Ersek 2003; Fairbank 2005; Flor 1993; Freeman 2002; Johansson 1998; Keefe 2004; Linton 2008; Marhold 2001; Moore 1985; Newton‐John 1995; O'Leary 1988; Peters 1990; Radojevic 1992; Redondo 2004; Spence 1989; Spence 1995; Strong 1998; Turner 1990; Turner 1993; Turner‐Stokes 2003; Vlaeyen 1995; Wicksell 2008; Woods 2008). We raised the criterion for entry from N>10 to N>20 in each arm. We added 'Risk of bias' ratings for all included studies. We also added a new outcome: catastrophic thinking.
29 March 2012	New citation required and conclusions have changed	The evidence for CBT is stronger, particularly when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list, and for mood and catastrophic thinking. The evidence for behaviour therapy is weak or lacking. The field will not be further advanced by more small RCTs of variants of CBT for heterogeneous patient groups but by different trial and analytic methods.