Skip to content

The efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions in acute pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Alice Shires, Louise Sharpe, Jonathan N. Davies, Toby R. O. Newton-John

Pain August 1, 2020 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001877 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Meta-analysis Randomized Peer reviewed
Population People with acute pain in randomized controlled trials
Intervention Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs)
Topics Meditation
Key findings The meta-analysis found no evidence that mindfulness-based interventions reduce acute pain severity or pain-related distress in clinical or experimental settings, but found beneficial effects on pain tolerance (Hedges' g = 0.68) and pain threshold (Hedges' g = 0.72) in experimental studies. Evidence quality was low or very low for most outcomes, with moderate evidence only for pain tolerance.

Abstract

Abstract: Recent meta-analyses have shown mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) to be effective for chronic pain, but no pooled estimates of the effect of MBIs on acute pain are available. This meta-analysis was conducted to fill that gap. A literature search was conducted in 4 databases. Articles were eligible if they reported on randomized controlled trials of MBIs for people with acute pain and one of the following outcomes: pain severity, pain threshold, pain tolerance, or pain-related distress. Two authors independently extracted the data, assessed risk of bias, and provided GRADE ratings. Twenty-two studies were included. There was no evidence of an effect of MBIs on the primary outcome of pain severity in clinical {Hedges' g = 0.52; (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.241 to 1.280)} or experimental settings (Hedges' g = 0.04; 95% CI [−0.161 to 0.247]). There was a beneficial effect of MBIs on pain tolerance (Hedges' g = 0.68; 95% CI [0.157-1.282]) and pain threshold (Hedges' g = 0.72; 95% CI [0.210-1.154]) in experimental studies. There was no evidence of an effect of MBIs compared to control for pain-related distress in clinical (Hedges' g = 0.16; 95% CI [−0.018 to 0.419]) or experimental settings (Hedges' g = 0.44; 95% CI [−0.164 to 0.419]). GRADE assessment indicated that except for pain tolerance, the data were of low or very low quality. There is moderate evidence that MBIs are efficacious in increasing pain tolerance and weak evidence for pain threshold. However, there is an absence of good-quality evidence for the efficacy of MBIs for reducing the pain severity or pain-related distress in either clinical or experimental settings.

Comparable studies

Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on meditation, most cited first.

Study Year Design Participants
Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being Diverse adult clinical populations 2014 Meta-analysis n = 3,515
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Stress Management in Healthy People: A Review and Meta-Analysis Healthy subjects 2009 Systematic review and meta-analysis
The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-analysis. Nonclinical groups of adult meditators 2012 Meta-analysis n = 163
Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Prevention of Depressive Relapse Adults with recurrent depression in full or partial remission 2016 Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials n = 1,258
Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy – a systematic review of randomized controlled trials 2011 Systematic review

Citations in the library

Cited by 16

and 11 more in the library

Cites 22

and 17 more in the library

Explore topics