The Effect of Diagnostic Labels on Treatment Preferences and Beliefs in People With Musculoskeletal Pain. A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE: To assess how different diagnostic labels affect treatment preferences and beliefs in people with musculoskeletal pain.
DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized trials.
LITERATURE SEARCH: PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Australian New Zealand
Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (from inception to September 17, 2025).
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials evaluating the impact of diagnostic labels for musculoskeletal pain on treatment preferences
and beliefs. Studies using hypothetical vignettes were eligible.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The primary outcomes were patient treatment preferences and beliefs. Due to heterogeneity of labels and accompanying explanations, a narrative synthesis approach was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the
Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and
Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: Five vignette-based randomized trials involving 7575 participants were included. Risk of bias was rated as low to some concerns across all outcomes. Low-certainty evidence suggested that specific diagnostic labels may increase patient preferences for imaging and surgery and may increase the perceived seriousness of the condition. Non-specific labels may lead to more positive
recovery beliefs and reduced perceived need for invasive treatments, and to lower patient satisfaction. The information accompanying these labels (eg, explanations, reassurance) may have influenced outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Based on low-certainty
evidence, specific diagnostic labels may increase
demand for invasive care and foster more negative
recovery expectations. Non-specific labels may
encourage non-invasive management but can contribute to patient dissatisfaction.