ReviewPain and therapy2022
A Systematic Review of the Variation in Pain Catastrophizing Scale Reference Scores Based on Language Version and Country in Patients with Chronic Primary (Non-specific) Pain.
Review in Pain and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Pooled it
- Dexamethasone, but Not Esketamine, Reduces Rebound Pain After Interscalene Nerve Block: A Randomized Factorial Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Trial
- Pain-related support seeking? Situating the response to pain within the social context using a sample of women experiencing menstrual pain.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Baseline predictors of responders to auricular point acupressure in chronic low back pain.Clinical traditional medicine and pharmacology · 2025Article
- Correlation between gene polymorphisms and perioperative analgesia in patients undergoing gynecological surgery.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- When Pain Catastrophizing Is Not Catastrophizing: Identifying Normative From Exaggerated Responses Relative to Referent Pain Intensity.Pain research & management · 2025Observational
- The influence of pain catastrophizing on pain and function after knee arthroplasty in knee osteoarthritis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Pain Catastrophizing in Cancer Patients.Cancers · 2024Article
- Association of high kinesiophobia and pain catastrophizing with quality of life in severe hip osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis systematic review aimed to investigate variations of reference scores for the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) between language versions and between countries in patients with chronic primary pain (CPP) or chronic primary pain, not otherwise specified (CPP-NOS).
methodsElectronic searches of the Ovid/Embase, Ovid/MEDLINE, and Ovid/PsycINFO databases were conducted to retrieve studies assessing PCS scores in adults with CPP or CPP-NOS proposed by the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision for any country where the translated PCS was available. The protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews 2018 (registration number: CRD 42018086719).
resultsA total of 3634 articles were screened after removal of duplicates. From these, 241 articles reporting on 32,282 patients with chronic pain were included in the review. The mean (± standard deviation) weighted PCS score across all articles was 25.04 ± 12.87. Of the 12 language versions and 21 countries included in the review, the weighted mean PCS score in Asian languages or Asian countries was significantly higher than that in English, European, and other languages or Western and other countries. The highest mean score of the weighted PCS based on language was in Japanese (mean 33.55), and the lowest was in Russian (mean 20.32). The highest mean score of the weighted PCS based on country was from Japan (mean 33.55), and the lowest was from Australia (mean 19.80).
conclusionThe weighted PCS scores for people with CPP or CPP-NOS were significantly higher in Asian language versions/Asian countries than in English, European and other language versions or Western and other countries.
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.