ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2013
Pain questionnaire performance in advanced prostate cancer: comparative results from two international clinical trials.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Traditional Chinese medicine on treating pain caused by prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Comparison of the Novel Digital Multi-dimension Botong Score with the Brief Pain Inventory for Evaluating Cancer-Related Pain: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Pain and therapy · 2023Article
- Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Patient-reported outcome labeling claims and measurement approach for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatments in the United States and European Union.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare pain assessment questionnaires commonly used in advanced prostate cancer trials and to determine the psychometric characteristics and longitudinal relationships by contrasting questionnaire data from two international phase 2 trials.
methodsScores from the Present Pain Intensity (PPI) question of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the pain intensity scale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) were analyzed using Pearson correlation, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Cronbach's α, respectively. Concordance was evaluated with Cohen's kappa coefficient and McNemar test at baseline (n = 224) and two subsequent observations.
resultsPPI and FACT-P scores were associated with the BPI score at baseline for Trials 1 and 2: PPI r = 0.66 and 0.80, respectively (P < 0.001); FACT-P (pain scale) r = -0.76 and -0.82, respectively (P < 0.001). However, concordance analysis revealed that the BPI identified pain (score > 0) at higher rates than the PPI: at baseline, BPI: 89 % (64/72) and 77 % (95/124), PPI: 68 % (49/72) and 64 % (79/124) [Trials 1 and 2, respectively; McNemar test (P < 0.001) for both studies]. The FACT-P pain scale identified pain similarly to the BPI pain intensity scale; longitudinal analysis produced comparable findings. All pain scales met standard psychometric acceptability criteria, but the BPI and FACT-P performed better than the PPI.
conclusionsData suggest the BPI pain intensity and FACT-P pain scales are better than the PPI question at capturing the pain experience among patients with advanced prostate cancer. Additional comparative research is needed in larger population samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23589119What 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.