↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
243 Mendeley
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

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 243 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 241 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 19%
Student > Bachelor 41 17%
Researcher 27 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 9%
Student > Postgraduate 16 7%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 50 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 16%
Psychology 39 16%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Other 23 9%
Unknown 62 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,638,108
of 19,003,560 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,179
of 11,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,067
of 241,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#166
of 271 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,003,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 241,198 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 271 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.