ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2015
[Distinctive features of orofacial pain perception].
Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pain characteristics in isolated cervical dystonia: comparison to orthopedic cervical conditions and assessment of botulinum toxin effects.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Article
- Design, construction, and technical implementation of a web-based interdisciplinary symptom evaluation (WISE) - a heuristic proposal for orofacial pain and temporomandibular disorders.The journal of headache and pain · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the widely used German pain questionnaire, qualitative pain characteristics are assessed by the Schmerzbeschreibungsliste (SBL). In clinical practice these adjectives insufficiently cover the spectrum of orofacial pain perceptions (OFP) and have not been proven by data. The aim of this study was the analysis of a questionnaire focussing on OFP (ZZM-FB) in which nine additional pain descriptors were amended to the SBL (SBL-OF).
objectivesThe objectives of this work were to (1) compare selection frequencies between the items of the SBL and the SBL-OF and (2) test the null hypothesis that the SBL and SBL-OF item selection is not influenced by gender, age, pain features (intensity, duration, time pattern, distribution), hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) and diagnosis. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 224 patients consecutively referred to the interdisciplinary OFP unit between 2010 and 2012 completed a ZZM-FB. The corresponding diagnosis was obtained from the clinical reports. In all, 209 OFP-Q were anonymized and data retrospectively analysed at a significance level of p ≤ 0.01.
resultsThe descending rank order of the 12 most frequently selected items was as follow: pressing (SBL), dull (SBL), pulling (SBL), stinging (SBL), dreadful (SBL), miserable (SBL), exhausting (SBL-OF), grueling (SBL-OF), agonizing (SBL-OF), atrocious (SBL), horrible (SBL), pulsating (SBL). The null hypothesis was rejected for all parameters except for age. The selection frequency was significantly influenced by gender, pain intensity, duration and distribution, time pattern, HADS values and diagnosis.
conclusionsIn this cohort, some ADD descriptors were selected more frequently than some SBL items, indicating that the SBL does not adequately capture the characteristics of OFP. These results will be considered in the construction of a revised ZZM-FB, which is currently in development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25739511What 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.