ArticlePain research and treatment2016
Cost-Saving Early Diagnosis of Functional Pain in Nonmalignant Pain: A Noninferiority Study of Diagnostic Accuracy.
Article in Pain research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anterior insular co-activation patterns associated with stress markers in chronic primary pain.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Chronic Pain Diagnosis Using Machine Learning, Questionnaires, and QST: A Sensitivity Experiment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Age and Gender as Factors of Pressure Sensitivity of Pain-Free Persons: Are They Meaningful?Journal of pain research · 2020Article
- Rethinking the criteria for fibromyalgia in 2019: the ABC indicators.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
- Using Deep Learning and Resting-State fMRI to Classify Chronic Pain Conditions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Response to: Comment on "Cost-Saving Early Diagnosis of Functional Pain in Nonmalignant Pain: A Noninferiority Study of Diagnostic Accuracy".Pain research and treatment · 2016Article
- Comment on "Cost-Saving Early Diagnosis of Functional Pain in Nonmalignant Pain: A Noninferiority Study of Diagnostic Accuracy".Pain research and treatment · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives. We compared two index screening tests for early diagnosis of functional pain: pressure pain measurement by electronic diagnostic equipment, which is accurate but too specialized for primary health care, versus peg testing, which is cost-saving and more easily manageable but of unknown sensitivity and specificity. Early distinction of functional (altered pain perception; nervous sensitization) from neuropathic or nociceptive pain improves pain management. Methods. Clinicians blinded for the index screening tests assessed the reference standard of this noninferiority diagnostic accuracy study, namely, comprehensive medical history taking with all previous findings and treatment outcomes. All consenting patients referred to a university hospital for nonmalignant musculoskeletal pain participated. The main analysis compared the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of both index screening tests. Results. The area under the ROC curve for peg testing was not inferior to that of electronic equipment: it was at least 95% as large for finger measures (two-sided p = 0.038) and at least equally as large for ear measures (two-sided p = 0.003). Conclusions. Routine diagnostic testing by peg, which is accessible for general practitioners, is at least as accurate as specialized equipment. This may shorten time-to-treatment in general practices, thereby improving the prognosis and quality of life.
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.