ArticleIrish journal of medical science2021
Patient's perceptions of physical examination in the setting of chronic pain.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considerations and experiences with healthcare-seeking during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Workplace violence in the ambulance service from the offender's perspective: a qualitative study using trial transcripts.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Middle East Pain Registry (MEPAIN): Feasibility Study of Chronic Pain Registry and Pilot Phase Results : Middle East Pain Registry (MEPAIN).Galen medical journal · 2025Article
- Point-of-Care Ultrasound Unveiling Rotator Cuff Injuries in the Emergency Department: A Case Series.Cureus · 2023Article
- Clinical Assessment of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain-A Framework Proposal Based on a Narrative Review of the Literature.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite its clinical utility, progressive reliance on imaging technology can lead to devaluing the physical examination in patients with chronic pain. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether chronic pain patients have a positive or negative perception of the physical examination.
methodsAfter institutional ethics committee approval, 120 adult patients as a convenience sample who attended a chronic pain clinic were included. Participants completed a 10-item survey regarding their overall perception of the physical examination. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test analyses were conducted to explore associations between test items and patient ages, gender, employment, pain diagnosis, and duration of pain. All cross-tabulations of categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher's exact test for associations.
resultsThe majority of participants were male (51%), aged 50-70 (44%). The most common pain diagnosis was back pain (62%). Most patients (77%) indicated that the overall experience of being examined was highly positive. Patients believe in the value of the physical examination as a diagnostic tool (97%). Patients believe in the relational value of the physical examination (92%). Age, gender, employment, pain diagnosis, and duration of pain were not associated with a more positive perception of the physical examination.
conclusionPatients with chronic pain indicate that the physical examination is a highly positive aspect of their care. There are some negative aspects of been examined which physicians should be aware of. This study adds to our knowledge regarding the physical exam in chronic pain patients. It will inform practice and training.
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.