ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2018
Predictive Ability of Intermittent Daily Sickle Cell Pain Assessment: The PiSCES Project.
Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2018. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the Balance Program to reduce pain-related disability in pediatric sickle cell disease.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2023Trial
- Criterion validity of the functional status and pain assessment scale versus pain and length of stay in hospitalized adults with SCD.Journal of sickle cell disease · 2026Article
- What interval of daily pain assessment is required to reliably diagnose chronic pain in SCD? The Pain in Sickle Cell Epidemiology Study.Journal of sickle cell disease · 2024Article
- Intraindividual pain variability metrics for youth with sickle cell disease: Relations to health outcomes.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2023Article
- Pain Burden in the CASiRe International Cohort of Sickle Cell Patients: United States and Ghana.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Pain diary assessment in sickle cell disease (SCD) may be expensive and impose a high respondent burden. Objective: To report whether intermittent assessment could substitute for continuous daily pain assessment in SCD. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Academic and community practices in Virginia. Patients. A total of 125 SCD patients age 16 years or older in the Pain in Sickle Cell Epidemiology Study. Measurements. Using pain measures that summarized all diaries as the gold standard, we tested the statistical equivalence of four alternative strategies that summarized diaries only from the week prior or the month prior to study completion; one week per month; or one day per week (random day). Summary measures included percent pain days, percent crisis days (self-defined), mean pain (0-9 Likert scale) on all days, and mean pain on pain days. Equivalence tests included comparisons of means, regression intercepts, and slopes, as well as measurement of R2. Results: Compared with the gold standard, the one-day-per-week and one-week-per-month strategies yielded statistically equivalent means of six summary pain measures, and the week prior and month prior yielded equivalent means as some of the measures. Regression showed statistically equivalent slopes and intercepts to the gold standard using one-day-per-week and one-week-per-month strategies for percent pain days and percent crisis days, but almost no other equivalence. R2 values ranged from 0.64 to 0.989. Conclusions: It is possible to simulate five- to six-month daily assessment of pain in SCD. Either one-day-per-week or one-week-per-month assessment yields an equivalent mean and fair regression equivalence.
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.