ArticleMedicine international
Accuracy of retrospective pain measurement in patients with chronic pain.
Article in Medicine international. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment of Pain in Older Adults Undergoing Auricular Point Acupressure for Chronic Low Back Pain: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR formative research · 2026Trial
- The role of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for menstrual pain relief: A randomized control trial.Women's health (London, England)Trial
- Long-term examination of pain and health-related outcomes in people with fibromyalgia before, during, and after COVID-19.Pain reports · 2026Article
- Chronic Pain and Biopsychosocial Correlates in Rural Filipino Adults: A Cross-Sectional Secondary Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Patient-reported symptom profiles in vitamin BFrontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of pain scales that refer to a past time period is thereby based on the assumption that patients accurately remember their 'average', 'greatest' and 'least' pain. The present study addresses the validity of numerical pain rating scales that refer to a past period of time (herein, the past 7 days). Routine data from 94 patients with chronic pain were retrospectively analysed. Pain questionnaire data on the greatest, least and average pain during the past week and on current pain were compared with the mean value of entries in a pain diary from the corresponding period. The retrospectively assessed average, greatest and least pain values were consistently slightly higher than the corresponding values of daily current pain measured for the studied collective of chronic pain patients. Current pain (at the time of answering the questionnaire) better represents daily currently measured pain [intraclass correlation (ICC)=0.885] than retrospective individual measurements. The greatest correlation with averaged diary data was shown by the combination of questionnaire data on average, least and current pain (ICC=0.911). The high correlations between the questionnaire and diary data support the validity of retrospective pain surveys. However, the current status influences recall. Thus, composite retrospective pain data improve with the addition of current pain.
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.