Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27605589›Full record

ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2017

Development of Short-Form Versions of the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R): A Proof-of-Principle Study.

Matthew D Finkelman, Niels Smits, Ronald J Kulich, Kevin L Zacharoff, Britta E Magnuson, Hong Chang, Jinghui Dong, Stephen F Butler

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Frequency and predictors of risk of non-medical opioid use among patients with cancer in a specialized outpatient palliative care clinic.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Techniques to Shorten a Screening Tool for Emergency Department Patients.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2019
    Article
  6. Measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it?Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthew D FinkelmanDepartment of Public Health and Community Service, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Niels SmitsResearch Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ronald J KulichCraniofacial Pain and Headache Center, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kevin L ZacharoffInflexxion, Inc, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.
Britta E MagnusonDepartment of Diagnostic Sciences, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Hong ChangTufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jinghui DongSackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Stephen F ButlerInflexxion, Inc, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.
Tufts University · USInflexxion (United States) · USPain and Headache Center · USUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Shortening the SOAPP-R: Computer-based opioid risk assessmentR03DA036683 · NIDA · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI FINKELMAN, MATTHEW · 2014 to 2015
$159k
NIDA NIH HHS R03 DA036683
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R) is a 24-item questionnaire designed to assess risk of aberrant medication-related behaviors in chronic pain patients. The introduction of short forms of the SOAPP-R may save time and increase utilization by practitioners.

objectiveTo develop and evaluate candidate SOAPP-R short forms.

designRetrospective study.

settingPain centers. SUBJECTS: Four hundred and twenty-eight patients with chronic noncancer pain.

methodsSubjects had previously been administered the full-length version of the SOAPP-R and been categorized as positive or negative for aberrant medication-related behaviors via the Aberrant Drug Behavior Index (ADBI). Short forms of the SOAPP-R were developed using lasso logistic regression. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of all forms were calculated with respect to the ADBI using the complete data set, training-test analysis, and 10-fold cross-validation. The coefficient alpha of each form was also calculated. An external set of 12 pain practitioners reviewed the forms for content.

resultsIn the complete data set analysis, a form of 12 items exhibited sensitivity, specificity, and AUC greater than or equal to those of the full-length SOAPP-R (which were 0.74, 0.67, and 0.76, respectively). The short form had a coefficient alpha of 0.76. In the training-test analysis and 10-fold cross-validation, it exhibited an AUC value within 0.01 of that of the full-length SOAPP-R. The majority of external practitioners reported a preference for this short form.

conclusionsThe 12-item version of the SOAPP-R has potential as a short risk screener and should be tested prospectively.

Indexed as

AdultAnalgesics, OpioidBehavior, AddictiveChronic PainCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOpioid-Related DisordersPain MeasurementReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSubstance Abuse DetectionSurveys and QuestionnairesAnalgesics, OpioidChronic PainOpioidsRisk StratificationShort FormSOAPP-RSubstance Abuse

Identifiers

PMID27605589
PMCPMC6279303
OpenAlexW2516739422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.