Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39161417›Full record

ArticlePain reports2024

Test-retest and interrater reliability of experimental within-subject variability of pain reports as assessed by the focused analgesia selection test.

Mariana Agostinho, Adi Shani, Rita Canaipa, Roi Treister

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Mariana AgostinhoThe Cheryl Spencer Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6264-2354
Adi ShaniThe Cheryl Spencer Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Rita CanaipaCIIS, Centre for Interdisciplinary Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences and Nursing, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Roi TreisterThe Cheryl Spencer Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Within-subject variability (WSV) of pain intensity reports has been shown to predict the placebo response. The focused analgesia selection test (FAST), which allows to experimentally assess WSV of pain reports, has been used as a screening tool to identify participants who are likely to have a strong placebo response in drug-development clinical trials. Yet, the reliability of FAST has not been reported. Objectives: To assess test-retest and interrater reliability of the FAST outcomes. To mimic pharma-sponsored clinical trials, we enlisted inexperienced assessors who underwent limited training. Methods: Healthy volunteers performed the FAST twice within a week and were randomly assigned to either the test-retest group or the interrater group. Results: Sixty-three participants completed the study and were assigned to the test-retest (N = 33) or interrater (N = 30) arms. No statistically significant differences in the FAST outcomes were detected between the 2 sessions, except for the FAST covariance (FAST Conclusion: Using inexperienced assessors, the FAST outcomes test-retest ranged from moderate to strong, whereas the interrater reliability ranged from weak to poor. These results highlight the importance of adequately training study staff members before using this tool in multicentre clinical trials.

Indexed as

Baseline pain fluctuationsClinical trialsPlaceboQuantitative sensory testingVariability

Identifiers

PMID39161417
PMCPMC11332713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.