ArticleJournal of pain research2016
The pain drawing as an instrument for identifying cervical spine nerve involvement in chronic whiplash-associated disorders.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determining the level of cervical radiculopathy: Agreement between visual inspection of pain drawings and magnetic resonance imaging.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2023Trial
- The Significance of Pain Drawing as a Screening Tool for Cervicogenic Headache and Associated Symptoms in Chronic Fatigue.Journal of pain research · 2022Article
- Beyond the Knife-Reviewing the Interplay of Psychosocial Factors and Peripheral Nerve Lesions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Distinct patterns of variation in the distribution of knee pain.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to investigate the psychometric properties of a standardized assessment of pain drawing with regard to clinical signs of cervical spine nerve root involvement.
designThis cross-sectional study included data collected in a randomized controlled study. PATIENTS: Two hundred and sixteen patients with chronic (≥6 months) whiplash-associated disorders, grade 2 or 3, were included in this study.
methodsThe validity, sensitivity, and specificity of a standardized pain drawing assessment for determining nerve root involvement were analyzed, compared to the clinical assessment. In addition, we analyzed the interrater reliability with 50 pain drawings.
resultsAgreement was poor between the standardized pain drawing assessment and the clinical assessment (kappa =0.11, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.20). Sensitivity was high (93%), but specificity was low (19%). Interrater reliability was good (kappa =0.64, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.76).
conclusionThe standardized pain drawing assessment of nerve root involvement in chronic whiplash-associated disorders was not in agreement with the clinical assessment. Further research is warranted to optimize the utilization of a pain/discomfort drawing as a supportive instrument for identifying nerve involvement in cervical spinal injuries.
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.