ArticlePain research & management
Use of a modified Comprehensive Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (CPEQ): characteristics and functional status of patients on entry to a tertiary care pain clinic.
Article in Pain research & management. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating patient satisfaction and perceived accuracy in questionnaires completed before vs. during a pain clinic visit.Pain management · 2025Trial
- A Scoping Review of Chronic Low Back Pain Classification Schemes Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes.Pain physician · 2022Article
- Demographics, Pain Characteristics and Diagnostic Classification Profile of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Patients Attending a Canadian University-Affiliated Community Pain Clinic.Pain and therapy · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Psychometric and Linguistic Properties of the Italian Adolescent Pain Assessment Scales: A Systematic Review.Pain and therapy · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedFurlan, Julio [corrected to Furlan, Julio C]
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith increasing knowledge of chronic pain, clinicians have attempted to assess chronic pain patients with lengthy assessment tools.
objectivesTo describe the functional and emotional status of patients presenting to a tertiary care pain clinic; to assess the reliability and validity of a diagnostic classification system for chronic pain patients modelled after the Multidimensional Pain Inventory; to provide psychometric data on a modified Comprehensive Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (CPEQ); and to evaluate the relationship between the modified CPEQ construct scores and clusters with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition - Text Revision Pain Disorder diagnoses.
methodsData on 300 new patients over the course of nine months were collected using standardized assessment procedures plus a modified CPEQ at the Comprehensive Pain Program, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario.
resultsCluster analysis of the modified CPEQ revealed three patient profiles, labelled Adaptive Copers, Dysfunctional, and Interpersonally Distressed, which closely resembled those previously reported. The distribution of modified CPEQ construct T scores across profile subtypes was similar to that previously reported for the original CPEQ. A novel finding was that of a strong relationship between the modified CPEQ clusters and constructs with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition - Text Revision Pain Disorder diagnoses. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe CPEQ, either the original or modified version, yields reproducible results consistent with the results of other studies. This technique may usefully classify chronic pain patients, but more work is needed to determine the meaning of the CPEQ clusters, what psychological or biomedical variables are associated with CPEQ constructs or clusters, and whether this instrument may assist in treatment planning or predict response to treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.