ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2023
Graded chronic pain scale revised: validation in a Veteran sample.
Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2023. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ecological Momentary Assessments of daily pain experiences in bothersome and high-impact chronic pain.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- A Comparative Analysis Between Soft Tissue Manipulation and Pharmacotherapy in TMJ Myofascial Dysfunction Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of therapeutic massage & bodywork · 2025Article
- Veterans in Northern Ireland: Evaluation of chronic pain experience, service type, and physical and mental health functioning.British journal of pain · 2025Article
- Initial validation of the LSPain scale: a behaviour-based clinical tool for canine lumbosacral pain.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) is frequently used in pain research and treatment to classify mild, bothersome, and high impact chronic pain. This study's objective was to validate the revised version of the GCPS (GCPS-R) in a US Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare sample to support its use in this high-risk population.
methodsData were collected from Veterans (n = 794) via self-report (GCPS-R and relevant health questionnaires) and electronic health record extraction (demographics and opioid prescriptions). Logistic regression, adjusting for age and gender, was used to test for differences in health indicators by pain grade. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported with CIs not including an AOR of 1 indicating that the difference exceeded chance.
resultsIn this population, the prevalence of chronic pain (pain present most or every day, prior 3 months) was 49.3%: 7.1% with mild chronic pain (mild pain intensity and lower interference with activities); 23.3% bothersome chronic pain (moderate to severe pain intensity with lower interference); and 21.1% high impact chronic pain (higher interference). Results of this study mirrored findings in the non-VA validation study; differences between bothersome and high impact were consistent for activity limitations and present but not fully consistent for psychological variables. Those with bothersome chronic pain or high impact chronic pain were more likely to receive long-term opioid therapy compared to those with no/mild chronic pain.
conclusionsFindings highlight categorical differences captured with the GCPS-R, and convergent validity supports use of the GCPS-R in US Veterans.
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.