↓ Skip to main content

Psychological interventions for symptomatic management of non-specific chest pain in patients with normal coronary anatomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychological interventions for symptomatic management of non-specific chest pain in patients with normal coronary anatomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004101.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kisely, Steve R, Campbell, Leslie A, Yelland, Michael J, Paydar, Anita, Steve R Kisely, Leslie A Campbell, Michael J Yelland, Anita Paydar

Abstract

Recurrent chest pain in the absence of coronary artery disease is a common problem which sometimes leads to excess use of medical care. Although many studies have examined the causes of pain in these patients, few clinical trials have evaluated treatment. This is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2005 and last updated in 2010. The studies reviewed in this paper provide an insight into the effectiveness of psychological interventions for this group of patients. To assess the effects of psychological interventions for chest pain, quality of life and psychological parameters in people with non-specific chest pain. We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, Issue 4 of 12, 2014 and DARE Issue 2 of 4, 2014), MEDLINE (OVID, 1966 to April week 4 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to week 18 2014), CINAHL (EBSCO, 1982 to April 2014), PsycINFO (OVID, 1887 to April week 5 2014) and BIOSIS Previews (Web of Knowledge, 1969 to 2 May 2014). We also searched citation lists and contacted study authors. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with standardised outcome methodology that tested any form of psychotherapy for chest pain with normal anatomy. Diagnoses included non-specific chest pain (NSCP), atypical chest pain, syndrome X or chest pain with normal coronary anatomy (as either inpatients or outpatients). Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. We contacted trial authors for further information about the included RCTs. We included two new papers, one of which was an update of a previously included study. Therefore, a total of 17 RCTs with 1006 randomised participants met the inclusion criteria, with the one new study contributing an additional 113 participants. There was a significant reduction in reports of chest pain in the first three months following the intervention: random-effects relative risk = 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92). This was maintained from three to nine months afterwards: relative risk 0.59 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.76). There was also a significant increase in the number of chest pain-free days up to three months following the intervention: mean difference (MD) 3.00 (95% CI 0.23 to 5.77). This was associated with reduced chest pain frequency (random-effects MD -2.26, 95% CI -4.41 to -0.12) but there was no evidence of effect of treatment on chest pain frequency from three to twelve months (random-effects MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.35 to 0.74). There was no effect on severity (random-effects MD -4.64 (95% CI -12.18 to 2.89) up to three months after the intervention. Due to the nature of the main interventions of interest, it was impossible to blind the therapists as to whether the participant was in the intervention or control arm. In addition, in three studies the blinding of participants was expressly forbidden by the local ethics committee because of issues in obtaining fully informed consent . For this reason, all studies had a high risk of performance bias. In addition, three studies were thought to have a high risk of outcome bias. In general, there was a low risk of bias in the other domains. However, there was high heterogeneity and caution is required in interpreting these results. The wide variability in secondary outcome measures made it difficult to integrate findings from studies. This Cochrane review suggests a modest to moderate benefit for psychological interventions, particularly those using a cognitive-behavioural framework, which was largely restricted to the first three months after the intervention. Hypnotherapy is also a possible alternative. However, these conclusions are limited by high heterogeneity in many of the results and low numbers of participants in individual studies. The evidence for other brief interventions was less clear. Further RCTs of psychological interventions for NSCP with follow-up periods of at least 12 months are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 25%
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 46%
Psychology 7 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,119,674
of 11,794,606 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,073
of 9,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,835
of 236,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#189
of 268 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,794,606 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 236,436 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 268 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.