ArticlePain reports2025
Validity and contributions to pain from the central aspects of pain questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Pain reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meditations on Methodological Issues in Clinical Investigations of "Central Sensitization" (Jonah XII).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Observational
- Towards an individualised approach to pain management in inflammatory arthritis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Review
- Patient and public involvement in musculoskeletal pain research: using mutual learning to improve research quality.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The central nervous system (CNS) contributes to pain perception across musculoskeletal conditions. The central aspects of pain (CAP) questionnaire captures a single score associated with quantitative sensory testing (QST) evidence of CNS dysfunction validated in knee osteoarthritis. Objectives: Given the different pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), an inflammatory polyarthritis, this cross-sectional study assessed CAP's psychometric properties and its association with pain in RA. Methods: Adults with RA were recruited from Nottinghamshire, London, and Cardiff. Participants completed CAP and reported pain using a numerical rating scale. A subgroup underwent additional assessments, including quantitative sensory testing (QST; Pressure Pain detection Threshold, Temporal Summation, Conditioned Pain Modulation), Disease Activity Score-28, C-reactive protein, questionnaires addressing pain and related characteristics, and Central Sensitization Inventory short form (CSI-9). Cronbach alpha, confirmatory factor (CFA), and Rasch measurement theory assessed CAP's reliability and validity. Multivariable linear regression modelled contributions to pain by inflammation indices and CAP or CSI-9. Results: The 380 participants (73% female, median 63 years) reported average pain over the past 4 weeks of 6/10 and a CAP score of 9/16. Central aspects of pain demonstrated acceptable reliability (ICC Conclusion: Central aspects of pain is reliable and valid for use with people with RA and explains RA pain variance better than inflammation or CSI-9.
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.