4.6 Review

Prevalence of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Persons with Chronic Pain: A Meta-analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHIATRY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00164

关键词

posttraumatic stress disorder; PTSD; chronic pain; systematic review; meta-analysis; prevalence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To summarize evidence for the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among persons with chronic pain (CP). Methods: We searched databases for studies published between January 1995 and December 2016, reporting the prevalence of PTSD in persons with CP. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the pooled prevalence using a random-effects model and performed subgroup analyses according to pain location, the population and assessment method. Results: Twenty-one studies were included and the PTSD prevalence varied from 0-57%, with a pooled mean prevalence of 9.7%, 95% CI (5.2-17.1). In subgroup analysis, the PTSD prevalence was 20.5%, 95% CI (9.5-39.0) among persons with chronic widespread pain, 11.2%, 95% CI (5.7-22.8) among persons with headache, and 0.3%, 95% CI (0.0-2.4) among persons with back pain. The prevalence in clinical populations was 11.7%, 95% CI (6.0-21.5) and in non-clinical populations 5.1%, 95% CI (0.01-17.2). In studies of self-reported PTSD symptoms, PTSD prevalence was 20.4%, 95% CI (10.6-35.5), and in studies where structured clinical interviews had been used to assess PTSD its prevalence was 4.5%, 95% (CI 2.1-9.3). The risk of bias was medium for most studies and the heterogeneity was high (I-2 = 98.6). Conclusion: PTSD is overall more prevalent in clinical cohorts of persons with CP and particularly in those with widespread pain, but may not always be more prevalent in non-clinical samples of persons with CP, compared to the general population. There is a large heterogeneity in prevalence across studies. Future research should identify sources of heterogeneity and the mechanisms underlying the comorbidity of the two conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据