ArticlePain and therapy2023
Comparison of the Novel Digital Multi-dimension Botong Score with the Brief Pain Inventory for Evaluating Cancer-Related Pain: A Randomized Crossover Trial.
Article in Pain and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor regarding Early Diagnosis of Herpes Zoster Neuralgia: A Narrative Review.Pain and therapy · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPain is a common symptom in patients with cancer, and comprehensive assessments of pain are crucial for decision-making of treatment regimens. This study aimed to compare the practicality of the novel digital multi-dimension Botong score (BTS) and the brief pain inventory (BPI) for evaluating cancer-related pain.
methodsThis randomized crossover trial enrolled patients with cancer-related pain at the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Shandong First Medical University between July and December 2022. The participants were randomized 1:1 to BTS evaluation followed by BPI or vice versa. The consistency of BTS and BPI was analyzed, including pain score and the impact of pain on emotions and sleep. The convenience, patient preference, and the filling time of the two tools were compared. The accuracy of BTS in detecting breakthrough pain and neuropathic pain was analyzed.
resultsA total of 308 patients with cancer-related pain were screened and 233 were finally included in the analysis. The Pearson correlation coefficients of pain score for BTS and BPI (4 relevant questions) were 0.583 for the worst pain score within 24 h, 0.394 for the mildest pain score within 24 h, 0.551 for the average pain score within 24 h, and 0.511 for the current pain score, respectively (all P < 0.01), indicating a positive correlation between the BTS and BPI pain scores. BTS was superior to BPI for filling time, convenience, and patient preference (191.03 vs. 256.76, 7.70 vs. 6.78, 7.58 vs. 6.70; all P < 0.01). The accuracy of BTS in detecting breakthrough pain and neuropathic pain was 98.28% and 97.42%, respectively.
conclusionPain scores evaluated by BTS have a positive correlation with those evaluated by BPI. BTS reduces the filling time, is more convenient to use, and is more favored by patients. In addition, BTS could help identify breakthrough pain and neuropathic pain. CLINICAL
trial registrationChictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR220062624.
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.