ArticlePain reports
Confirmatory factor analysis of the International Pain Outcome questionnaire in surgery.
Article in Pain reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Translation and validation of the Breastfeeding Motivation Scale in China.International breastfeeding journal · 2024Article
- The Effectiveness of Quadratus Lumborum and Fascia Iliaca Blocks on Patient Outcomes in Hip Arthroplasty.Pain research & management · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChoosing perioperative suitable treatments requires reliable and valid outcome measurements. The International Pain Outcome (IPO) questionnaire has been widely used for quality improvement and research purposes within the PAIN-OUT network that has collected more than 550,000 data sets of postoperative patients in 200 hospitals worldwide. Our aim is to confirm psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the IPO questionnaire and its invariance by pain predictors.
methodSample included 4014 participants within a large age range, who underwent different surgical procedures. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed internal structure, considering invariance by sex, age, procedure, smoking, obesity, affective disorder, and chronic pain. Incremental predictive validity of factor scores on question
resultsConfirmatory factor analysis verified original structure in 3 factors measuring pain intensity and interference (F1), adverse effects (F2), and perceptions of care (F3), with good internal consistency. Multigroup CFA analysis confirmed invariance by assessed pain predictors. Good incremental predictive capacity to identify
conclusionOur study confirms the factor structure, supports reliability, and adds some evidence of convergent validity of the Spanish adaptation of the IPO questionnaire. The sum of scores in its main factors serves a global outcome analysis tool. Low scores in F1 and F2 with high scores in F3 would indicate optimal quality of care.
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.