Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32381020›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2020

Creation and validation of the 4-item BriefPCS-chronic through methodological triangulation.

David M Walton, Swati Mehta, Wonjin Seo, Joy C MacDermid

Registry-linked trialAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06016647 (Precision Multi-Axis Pain Assessment of Injured Workers to Improve Treatment and Work Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06016647 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Precision Multi-Axis Pain Assessment of Injured Workers to Improve Treatment and Work Outcomes

TypeobservationalSponsorDave WaltonRan2023 to 2025Enrolled350ConditionsMusculoskeletal Injury, Musculoskeletal Strain, Low Back Pain, Neck PainArmsMusculoskeletal-specific WSIB programs of care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, and substance use among Black individuals with chronic pain who use opioids.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

David M WaltonDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. dwalton5@uwo.ca.
Swati MehtaDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Wonjin SeoDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Joy C MacDermidDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Institute of Gender and Health 137148
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is a widely used self-report tool to evaluate pain related catastrophizing. The PCS was developed using classical test theory and has been shown to be psychometrically sound among various populations. However, it's current three subscales are rarely used in clinical practice, offering potential for an abbreviated version that reduces administrative burden and can be used to estimate full scale scores, yet is not bound by the inclusion of items from each subscale. Hence, the aim of the current study was to develop a unidimensional abbreviated version of the PCS through findings from qualitative, classical test theory, and newer Rasch analysis.

methodsThe current cross-sectional study used data from the Quebec Pain Registry (n = 5646) to obtain PCS scores of people seeking care at tertiary chronic pain centres. To develop an abbreviated unidimensional tool, items were removed based on triangulation of qualitative review of each item and response, corrected item-total correlations, and Rasch analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the final remaining items to confirm the tool was assessing a single latent construct (catastrophizing). Fit was assessed using the cumulative fit index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA).

resultsAfter triangulation, a final abbreviated 4-item scale showed adequate model fit with a strong correlation (r > 0.95) with the original scale and properties that were stable across age, sex, cause, and medicolegal status. Additionally, the brief version addressed some problematic wording on some items on the original scale. Both the original and new abbreviated tool were associated with the Beck Depression Inventory and the Brief Pain Inventory at the same magnitude.

conclusionThe abbreviated scale may allow for a decrease in administrator burden and greater clinical uptake when a quick screen for exaggerated negative orientation towards pain is needed.

Indexed as

AdultCatastrophizationCross-Sectional StudiesFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsQuality of LifeConfirmatory factor analysisContent analysisMethodological triangulationPain catastrophizing, Outcome Measures, Rasch analysis

Identifiers

PMID32381020
PMCPMC7204020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.