ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2025
In clinical hand osteoarthritis research, self-reported pain questionnaires do not reflect the patient experience.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2025. 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.
- Comment on: In clinical hand osteoarthritis research, self-reported pain questionnaires do not reflect the patient experience: reply.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePain in hand osteoarthritis (OA) is evaluated with repeated pain questionnaires. It is unclear whether these questionnaires adequately capture changes in pain recalled by patients. This study investigated whether changes on pain questionnaires (real-time evaluation) correspond to recalled pain.
methodsData from hand OA patients from the HOSTAS cohort (four one-yearly) and HOPE trial (one six-week interval) were used. Pain was measured with the Australian/Canadian hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN, range 0-20) and a recall question (how is the pain compared with your last visit). Changes in AUSCAN pain were categorized into improved (≤-1), stable or worsened pain (≥1) and compared with the recall question using Cohen's kappa and percentage agreement. We determined concordance between measurement methods, and investigated associations of mental well-being and illness perceptions with concordance using generalized estimating equations (GEE).
resultsOf 708 intervals from HOSTAS (307 patients, 82% women, mean age 61.0 years, mean AUSCAN 9.1), AUSCAN changes and recall were concordant in 42% (Cohen's kappa 0.13). There was concordance in 47% of 86 intervals (Cohen's kappa 0.14) from the HOPE trial (86 patients, 80% women, mean age 63.5, mean AUSCAN 10.7). The most frequent recall answer was worsened pain in the HOSTAS (60%), improved pain in the HOPE trial (76%). In both studies, AUSCAN pain most frequently improved. Depression and anxiety showed no association with concordance.
conclusionChanges in repeatedly measured AUSCAN pain often differ from the recalled course of pain over the same period. This has profound implications for evaluating patient-reported pain in clinical trials.
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.