ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Defining chronic pain impact levels: a patient-clinician approach using PROMIS® pain interference scores.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Skill-Based Virtual Reality Therapy in High-Impact Chronic Pain: 2-Year Follow-Up Results From a Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Pain Catastrophizing, Pain Self-Efficacy, and their Interaction as Predictors of Health Outcomes in Chronic Pain.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- From randomized controlled trial to real world clinical evidence: effectiveness and engagement of in-home virtual reality pain treatment for chronic pain in older adults.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our study aims to establish PROMIS Pain Interference score (PI) ranges that clinicians and persons living with chronic pain (PLwCP) associate with none, mild, moderate, and high impact chronic pain. We employed the PRO-Bookmarking technique to identify threshold scores that delineate different levels of chronic pain impact. PROMIS-PI score vignettes or "score stories" were developed to communicate the experience of living with different levels of pain interference. A panel of 10 PLwCP and another of 5 pain clinicians identified pairs of score vignettes they judged to represent the threshold between two levels of pain impact (e.g., ''moderate impact" and ''high impact"). We defined threshold scores as the mean score of the adjacent vignettes. We applied the obtained threshold scores to the distribution of PROMIS-PI scores in a sample of persons (n = 31,090) seen in a tertiary pain clinic. In another sample, we compared the Bookmarking and the revised Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS-R) classifications. Patients and clinicians were in consensus on threshold scores for "no impact" to "mild impact" and "moderate impact" to "high impact," scores of 47 and 69, respectively. However, for the threshold for "mild impact to "moderate impact," the value was 65 for patients and 60 for clinicians. The comparison of classifications in the secondary sample revealed differences, especially for the 3rd level, high impact. The GCPS-R classified 58.2% as having high impact chronic pain; the Bookmarking thresholds classified 23.8% as such. The PRO-Bookmarking approach effectively delineated thresholds for classifying levels of chronic pain impact using PROMIS-PI scores. This method incorporates the perspectives of PLwCP and allows for post-hoc application to diverse patient samples.
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.