Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28660417›Full record

ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2017

[What does pain intensity mean from the patient perspective? : A qualitative study on the patient perspective of pain intensity as an outcome parameter in treatment evaluation and on the interpretability of pain intensity measurements].

K Neustadt, S Deckert, C Kopkow, A Preißler, B Bosse, C Funke, L Jacobi, P Mattenklodt, B Nagel, P Seidel and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

K NeustadtUniversitäts-SchmerzCentrum, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland. katrin.neustadt@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
S DeckertZentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Medizinische Fakultät, TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
C KopkowZentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Medizinische Fakultät, TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
A PreißlerUniversitäts-SchmerzCentrum, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
B BosseSchmerzzentrum St. Georg, Klinikum St. Georg Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland.
C FunkeSchmerzzentrum St. Georg, Klinikum St. Georg Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland.
L JacobiZentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Medizinische Fakultät, TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
P MattenklodtInterdisziplinäres Schmerzzentrum, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Deutschland.
B NagelDRK Schmerzzentrum Mainz, Mainz, Deutschland.
P SeidelSchmerzzentrum St. Georg, Klinikum St. Georg Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland.
R SittlInterdisziplinäres Schmerzzentrum, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Deutschland.
E SteffenDRK Schmerzzentrum Mainz, Mainz, Deutschland.
R SabatowskiUniversitäts-SchmerzCentrum, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
J SchmittZentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Medizinische Fakultät, TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
U KaiserUniversitäts-SchmerzCentrum, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
TU Dresden · DEKlinikum St. Georg · DESchmerzklinik Kiel · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DEUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPain intensity (PI) is a common outcome parameter in effectiveness studies on interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMPT), despite the fact that IMPT highlights dealing with rather than reducing chronic pain. Moreover, the measurement of pain intensity as a highly subjective experience is problematic. Patient participation is absolutely essential to examine the relevance of PI as a criterion of treatment success as well as to select/develop suitable measurement methods.

methodA qualitative multicenter study was conducted using focus groups with 69 patients (18-77 years; 80% female) at four different IMPT centers in Germany to discuss pain intensity as a therapy outcome parameter in IMPT, as well as the interpretability and feasibility of common measurement methods.

resultsThe discussions emphasized that PI is a relevant, but not the primary, outcome in IMPT for patients. Patients' statements also demonstrate that there are some problems in measuring PI, for instance with regard to pain attacks.

conclusionsThe focus group discussions suggested that, due to the highly subjective nature of PI, as well as (verbal) inaccuracies and a lack of standardization in common instruments, the measurement of pain intensity is a challenging task. These limitations should be taken into account in future studies.

Indexed as

Chronic PainPain ManagementPain MeasurementAdolescentAdultAgedCombined Modality TherapyFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultFocus groupsInterdisciplinary multimodal pain therapyPain intensityPain measurementPatient participation

Identifiers

PMID28660417
OpenAlexW2769101492

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.