Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36345999›Full record

ArticleCartilage2022

Recall Bias Affects Pain Assessment in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Study.

Davide Previtali, Angelo Boffa, Alessandro Di Martino, Luca Deabate, Marco Delcogliano, Giuseppe Filardo

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cartilage, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Are pain intensity measures interchangeable? agreement among ODI, SRS-22, and COMI in chronic low back pain with and without scoliosis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Is any research ever truly bias-free? The myth of objectivity in science.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. The Need for Continued Investment in Digital Pain Assessment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Prevalence and predictive testing preferences for breast cancer treatment side effects.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Methodological considerations in calculating the minimal clinically important change score for the core outcome measures index (COMI): insights from a large single-centre spine surgery registry.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Davide PrevitaliService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0284-4368
Angelo BoffaApplied and Translational Research Center, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1523-6900
Alessandro Di MartinoClinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica 2, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Luca DeabateService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.
Marco DelcoglianoService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.
Giuseppe FilardoService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · ITUniversità della Svizzera italiana · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the recall bias of symptoms evaluation in knee osteoarthritis (OA).

designIn this multicentric pilot study, 50 patients with knee OA used a mobile App (Ecological Momentary Assessment [EMA]) to collect pain and function on two 0 to 10 numerical rating scales (NRS) 2 times a day for 2 months. At the 1-month and at the 2-month follow-up visits, patients retrospectively evaluated the mean level of pain/function of the last month. Recall bias was computed as the difference between the mean level of pain/function reported using the App and the level reported with the retrospective assessment. The correlation between the recall bias and patients' characteristics, as well as pain/function trajectories, was analyzed.

resultsA statistically significant recall bias was documented with higher pain reported at 1-month with the retrospective assessment (

conclusionsThe recall bias influences the retrospective self-assessment of pain at the follow-up visits and the presence of pain peaks, a common event in the patients with OA, increases the magnitude of recall bias. The EMA performed with a mobile App is a useful tool to limit the influence of recall bias in the clinical and research setting evaluation of knee OA.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneeQuality of LifeHumansPainPain MeasurementPilot ProjectsRetrospective Studiesecological momentary assessment (EMA)kneeosteoarthritispainrecall bias

Identifiers

PMID36345999
PMCPMC9924980
OpenAlexW4308551557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.