ArticleJournal of pain research2022
Development and Validation of the Italian "Brief Five-Item Chronic Pain Questionnaire" for Epidemiological Studies.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Unmet Needs of Patients With Chronic Pain: The Development and Validation of the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire for Chronic Pain.Pain research & management · 2026Article
- Chronic Pain Prevalence and Psychosocial Burden in the Italian Population from the 2019 European Health Interview Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Psycho-Socio-Behavioural Substrates of Non-Cancer Chronic Pain: A Twin Study in Italian Adults.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- An Italian Twin Study of Non-Cancer Chronic Pain as a Wide Phenotype and Its Intensity.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic pain (CP) prevalence estimates addressing a wide phenotype are still quite fragmented and may vary widely due to the lack of standardized tools of investigation. There is an urgent need to update general population CP estimates. Methods: For this purpose, the Brief Five-item Chronic Pain Questionnaire was developed through experts' consultations for design and content validity assessment; literature analysis of measures used to investigate CP for general population surveys; understandability evaluation through a survey on a convenience sample of affected and non-affected individuals; reliability assessment by means of two double-wave online surveys carried out by the Italian Twin Registry; criterion and construct validity assessment through the third wave of the 2019 European Health Interview Survey (Ehis). Results: Key dimensions were defined to describe CP main aspects from a public health perspective. Literature analysis showed that validated questionnaires were rarely used to address important public health CP aspects. Understandability of the measure was good. Test-retest analyses showed adequate reliability of the measure: k values were at least "moderate" with highest values regarding CP "occurrence" and "intensity". Correlations of CP with well-known comorbidities (cancer, depression), and specific traits (age, education) as well as of CP and its intensity with "physical pain occurrence and intensity" detected in the Ehis 2019, confirmed, respectively, a good construct and criterion validity. Construct validity was also evaluated through the correlation between "perceived treatment effectiveness" and "interference of pain in daily life activities" as recorded in the Ehis 2019. Conclusion: The designed questionnaire is a brief self-administered measure, particularly suitable to detect persistent states of pain and related intensity in large-scale general population surveys by means of a first filtering item followed by four further items. It is, in fact, designed to detect CP possible underlying causes/triggers, drugs/treatments taking and frequency, and self-perceived effectiveness among CP sufferers. Further validation of the measure in different social and cultural contexts is desirable.
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.