Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32947012›Full record

ArticleThe journal of pain2021

I. Indices of Pain Intensity Derived From Ecological Momentary Assessments: Rationale and Stakeholder Preferences.

Arthur A Stone, Joan E Broderick, Roberta E Goldman, Doerte U Junghaenel, Alicia Bolton, Marcella May, Stefan Schneider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of pain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Tracking quality of life-related outcomes in the U.S. population with monthly PROMIS computerized adaptive testing.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Arthur A StoneDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Deparment of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Joan E BroderickDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Roberta E GoldmanAlpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Doerte U JunghaenelDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Alicia BoltonDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Marcella MayDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Stefan SchneiderDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: schneids@usc.edu.

Funding

Innovative pain outcomes derived from patients real-time pain reportsR01AR066200 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI SCHNEIDER, STEFAN, STONE, ARTHUR A · 2015 to 2018
$1.8M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR066200
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pain assessment that fully represents patients' pain experiences is essential for chronic pain research and management. The traditional primary outcome measure has been a patient's average pain intensity over a time period. In this series of 3 articles, we examine whether pain assessment can be enhanced by considering additional outcome measures capturing temporal aspects of pain, such as pain maxima, duration, and variability. Ecological momentary assessment makes the assessment of such indices readily available. In this first article, we discuss the rationale for considering additional pain indices derived from ecological momentary assessment and examine which are most important to stakeholders. Patients (n = 32), clinicians (n = 20), and clinical trialists (n = 20) were interviewed about their preference rankings for Average, Worst, and Least Pain, Time in High Pain, Time in No/Low Pain, Pain Variability, and Pain Unpredictability. Each stakeholder group displayed a distinct preference hierarchy for different indices, and there were few commonalities between groups. Patients favored Worst Pain and Time in High Pain, followed by Pain Variability and Unpredictability. Trialists favored Average Pain, whereas clinicians favored Worst Pain. Results suggest that multiple temporal aspects of pain are relevant for stakeholders and should be considered when evaluating the efficacy of pain management. PERSPECTIVE: Examining which aspects of pain are most important to measure from the perspective of different stakeholders can facilitate efforts to include all relevant treatment outcomes. Our study suggests that multiple temporal aspects of pain intensity are important to stakeholders. This should be considered when evaluating the efficacy of pain management.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEcological Momentary AssessmentPain MeasurementPatient PreferenceSeverity of Illness IndexAdultAgedClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainResearch PersonnelStakeholder Participationecological momentary assessmentpain indicesPain intensitystakeholders

Identifiers

PMID32947012
PMCPMC7956922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.