Skip to main content
. 2018 Dec 19;2018(12):CD012622. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012622.pub2

Jensen 2009.

Methods
  • Randomised controlled clinical trial

  • Study conducted in the USA

  • Randomisation through computer‐generated lists

  • Allocation concealment not described

Participants Population source: recruited from previously completed survey of study of pain
Numbers: randomised 22, self‐hypnosis first 8, self‐hypnosis 7, progressive muscle relaxation 7
Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of MS, at least 18 years old, reported chronic daily pain that was rated as being at least 4/10, on average, on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale of intensity and indicated on the survey that they would be willing to be contacted about possible participation in future research studies.
Exclusion criteria: evidence of severe psychopathology symptoms or psychosis on interview or endorsement of active suicidal ideation with intent within the past 6 months, score of 21 or greater on the Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status indicative of severe cognitive deficits that could potentially interfere with the focused attention required for hypnosis.
Age: mean age 51.7 years (27‐75 years)
Gender: 16 women, 6 men
Type of MS: not reported
Pain type: not reported
Interventions Intervention: self‐hypnosis training
Control: progressive relaxation
Duration: 10 sessions
Outcomes Primary outcome
  • NRS


Secondary outcomes
  • BPI

  • Amount and effects of hypnosis (pain relief 0 to 10, number of days listened, usual number of times listened, hours of relief they experiences after listening)

Notes Funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Participants were randomly assigned via a computer‐generated list of random numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No allocation concealment described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk No blinding reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Blinding of assessors
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Two of the participants did not provide complete data
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All data presented
Other bias Low risk No other bias detected