Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17690014›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of pain2007

A systematic review of measures used to assess chronic musculoskeletal pain in clinical and randomized controlled clinical trials.

Leighann Litcher-Kelly, Sharon A Martino, Joan E Broderick, Arthur A Stone

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of pain, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Biofield therapies: helpful or full of hype? A best evidence synthesis.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2010
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Leighann Litcher-KellyApplied Behavioral Medicine Research Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794-8790, USA. Leighann.Litcher@sunysb.edu
Sharon A Martino
Joan E Broderick
Arthur A Stone

Funding

Ecolog validity- patient-reported chronic disease*(RMI)U01AR052170 · NIAMS · STATE UNIVERSITY NEW YORK STONY BROOK · PI STONE, ARTHUR A · 2004 to 2008
$3.8M
NIAMS NIH HHS U01 AR052170NIAMS NIH HHS U01 AR052170-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThere are many types of pain assessments available to researchers conducting clinical trials, ranging from simple, single-item Visual Analog Scale (VAS) questions through extensive, multidimensional inventories. The primary question addressed in this survey of top-tier medical journals was: Which pain assessments are most commonly used in trials? Articles addressing chronic musculoskeletal pain in clinical trials were identified in 7 major medical journals for the year 2003. A total of 50 studies (1476 total original research articles reviewed) met selection criteria, and from these we identified 28 types of pain assessments. Selected studies were classified according to the dimensions of pain assessed, the type of scale and descriptors/anchors used, and the reporting period specified. The most frequently used assessments were the single-item VAS and the Numeric Rating Scale; multidimensional inventories were used infrequently. There was considerable variability in the instructions patients received about the period to consider when evaluating their pain, and many studies provided only cursory information about their assessments in the methods. Overall, it appears that clinical trials use simple measures of pain and that there is no widely accepted standard for clinical pain assessment that would facilitate comparison of outcomes across trials. PERSPECTIVE: This review highlights the heterogeneity of pain outcome measures used and the abundance of single-item measures in clinical trials. Although there are many pain outcome measures available to clinical researchers, more consistency in the field should be encouraged so that results between studies can be compared.

Indexed as

Pain ManagementHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesOutcome Assessment, Health CarePainPain MeasurementRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID17690014
PMCPMC2691574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.