ArticlePain reports2026
Validation of the integral of pain relief as a measure of chronic pain treatment efficacy.
Article in Pain reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07762170 (Success Rates and Safety in Managing Spinal and Sacro-Iliac Pain), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Success Rates and Safety in Managing Spinal and Sacro-Iliac Pain: A Critical Analysis
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Several scales are currently in use to measure chronic pain and its variations with treatments, as patient-reported outcomes; however, they are based only on pain intensity and neglect the duration of pain relief, critical to compare the efficacy of different treatments. Objectives: To assess the validity of the integral of pain relief (IPR), an index that combines the percentage and duration of pain relief, to compare the efficacy of various treatments. Methods: Patients undergoing intra-articular corticosteroid injections for knee osteoarthritis were recruited to validate the IPR. The pain intensity was assessed at baseline, using 2 different pain scales; and at follow-up visits 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 weeks after the injection; adding the IPR and the patient's global impression of change (PGIC). The correspondence between the various scales and PGIC values was examined with data stratification, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and Spearman correlations. Results: In total, 66 patients were included in the analysis (20 men and 46 women, mean age 68.5 ± 9.2 years). All measures were strongly correlated, and the IPR could effectively identify responders at weeks 8 and 12, according to PGIC values, with a single value that can also be used for statistical analyses, unlike the PGIC. In addition, the IPR showed significant sex differences, with more effective and prolonged pain relief in women than in men ( Conclusion: The IPR demonstrated validity and responsiveness to assess the efficacy and duration of pain relief treatments in patients with chronic pain.
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.