Background: Experience of lung cancer includes negative impacts on both physical and psychological health. Pain is one of the negative experiences of lung cancer. Cognitive behavioral therapy techniques are often recommended as treatments for lung cancer pain. The objective of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy techniques in treating lung cancer pain. This review considered studies that included lung cancer patients who were required to 1) be at least 18 years old; 2) speak and read English or Thai; 3) have a life expectancy of at least two months; 4) experience daily cancer pain requiring an opioid medication; 5) have a positive response to opioid medication; 6) have "average or usual" pain between 4 and 7 on a scale of 0-10 for the day before the clinic visit or for a typical day; and 7) able to participate in a pain evaluation and treatment program. This review considered studies to examine interventions for use in treatment of pain in lung cancer patients, including: biofeedback, cognitive/attentional distraction, imagery, hypnosis, and meditation. Any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined cognitive behavioral therapy techniques for pain specifically in lung cancer patients were included. In the absence of RCTs, quasi-experimental designs were reviewed for possible conclusion in a narrative summary. Outcome measures were pain intensity before and after cognitive behavioural therapy techniques. The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished literature. A three-step search was utilised by using identified keywords and text term. An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL was undertaken followed by analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe the article. A second search using all the identified keywords and index terms was then undertaken across all included databases. Thirdly, the reference list of all identified reports and articles were searched for additional studies. Searches were conducted during January 1991-March 2014 limited to English and Thai languages with no date restriction. Materials and Methods: All studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodological quality by three reviewers using a standardized critical appraisal tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Three reviewers extracted data independently, using a standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Ideally for quantitative data meta-analysis was to be conducted where all results were subject to double data entry. Odds ratios (for categorical data) and weighted mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals were to be calculated for analysis and heterogeneity was to be assessed using the standard Chi-square. Where statistical pooling was not possible the finding were be presented in narrative form. Results: There were no studies located that met the inclusion requirements of this review. There were al...