ArticleDigital health
PaiNEd app. Assessing central sensitization in survivors of breast cancer: A reliability study.
Article in Digital health. 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.
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
Introduction: Pain is a common adverse event in survivors of breast cancer (sBCs). As there is no gold standard to assess pain experience predominantly related to central sensitization (CS) symptoms, we designed the Objective: We aimed to assess the reliability of the Methods: An observational, descriptive reliability design was employed to assess the inter- and intrarater reliability of the Results: A total of 21 sBCs with persistent pain were recruited. We observe a general trend of close agreement between the paper-based and app-based formats (ICCs ranged between 0.802 and 0.972; Cronbach's alpha ranged between 0.797 and 0.971). Test-retest reliabilities were moderate to excellent (ICCs ranged between 0.510 and 0.941; Cronbach's alpha ranged between 0.499 and 0.938). The agreement between the categorization of the CS algorithm and the CSI (cut-off point ≥ 40 for CS symptoms) was 95.24%. Conclusion: The
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.