Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35069368›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Interpretation Biases in Pain: Validation of Two New Stimulus Sets.

Daniel Gaffiero, Paul Staples, Vicki Staples, Frances A Maratos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Daniel GaffieroDepartment of Health, Psychology and Social Care, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom.
Paul StaplesDepartment of Health, Psychology and Social Care, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom.
Vicki StaplesDepartment of Health, Psychology and Social Care, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom.
Frances A MaratosDepartment of Health, Psychology and Social Care, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adults with chronic pain interpret ambiguous information in a pain and illness related fashion. However, limitations have been highlighted with traditional experimental paradigms used to measure interpretation biases. Whilst ambiguous scenarios have been developed to measure interpretation biases in adolescents with pain, no scenario sets exist for use with adults. Therefore, the present study: (i) sought to validate a range of ambiguous scenarios suitable for measuring interpretation biases in adults, whilst also allowing for two response formats (forced-choice and free response); and (ii) investigate paradigm efficacy, by assessing the effects of recent pain experiences on task responding. A novel ambiguous scenarios task was administered to adults (

Indexed as

adultsambiguous scenarioscognitive biasesinterpretation biaspain

Identifiers

PMID35069368
PMCPMC8781539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.