Date	Event	Description
9 November 2021	Amended	In a letter to the Editor of Clinical Journal of Pain 2013;29(5):469, Thorsell and co‐authors published an erratum table relating to the trial that is included in this review and the previous review. This erratum corrected the mislabelling of standard errors as standard deviations in Thorsell et al. 2011. We did not see the erratum when preparing this review. We have now calculated standard deviations for the relevant data from Thorsell et al. 2011, and corrected Tables 5.1 through 5.6, ACT vs active control for the outcomes of pain, disability, and distress, post‐treatment and at follow‐up. None of the results changes substantively, so we have corrected Results and results in the Abstract, but none of our conclusions.
17 May 2021	Amended	Removed duplicate text in Methods ‐ Summary of findings section.
1 July 2020	New search has been performed	This review has been updated to include the results of a new search on 16 April 2020.
1 July 2020	New citation required and conclusions have changed	The new search identified 41 new studies (6255 participants) which are added to this update. We have included GRADE assessments in this update.
30 September 2019	Amended	Clarification added to Declarations of interest.
27 July 2017	Amended	Author deceased. See Published notes.
23 March 2016	Amended	Amended declarations of interest section (see Declarations of interest).
9 February 2016	Review declared as stable	See Published notes.
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 2010a; Glombiewski 2010; Leeuw 2008a; Lindell 2008; Litt 2009; Morone 2008; Schmidt 2011; Thorsell 2011; Van Koulil 2010; Wetherell 2011a; Zautra 2008). Thirty four trials included in the previous version were excluded (Astin 2003; Babu 2007; Becker 2000; Bradley 1987; Buhrman 2004 Carson 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.