ArticlePain2020
Hospitalized patients quantify verbal pain intensity descriptors: methodological issues and values for 26 descriptors.
Article in Pain, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensory Versus Affective Pain Descriptors Predicting Functional Versus Psychosocial Disability.The journal of pain · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Patients often tell others about their pain using their own verbal descriptors of pain intensity, but the meaning of this pain language is not universally evident, which could contribute to misinterpretation about pain severity. The study purpose was to discover the intensity values of verbal pain intensity descriptors. The 248 randomly selected inpatients used a visual analogue scale to assign a value to each of 26 pain intensity descriptors. Each participant completed 36 randomly ordered visual analogue scales, 10 of which were replications. Except for descriptors with medians close to 0 or 100 mm, there was large, across-person variability for the descriptors. For example, medians ± SD for some exemplar descriptors were no pain 0.7 ± 2.4; mild 16.2 ± 12.2; discomforting 31.3 ± 22.2; distressing 55.3 ± 24; horrible 87.8 ± 13.6; and excruciating 94.6 ± 9.3. Test-retest reliability indicated small within-person variability on scores assigned to each descriptor. Thirteen descriptors showed some statistically significant but rather small effects of presentation order. Findings contribute estimates for the magnitude of pain represented by each of the 26 descriptors. Clinicians, text data miners, and researchers should consider these values as they interpret the meaning of the descriptors that they hear in daily practice or research settings or that they find in electronic health records, email messages, or social media posts. Despite the wide variability in the magnitude of each descriptor, findings provide insights about the intensity of pain when individuals use verbal pain intensity descriptors in conversations, social media, or clinical encounters.
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.