ArticleSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2025
The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) in Brazilian patients with chronic cancer pain: translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation study.
Article in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) was developed to measure avoidance and cognitive fusion.
objectivesTo translate, cross-culturally adapt, and analyze the measurement properties of the Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) in Brazilian patients with chronic cancer pain.
methodsQuestionnaire translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation studies were conducted in two hospitals in northeastern Brazil. The measurement properties tested included structural validity, construct validity, reliability, and internal consistency. The following assessment instruments were used in addition to the PIPS: Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Barthel Index, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).
resultsThe study sample consisted of 122 patients, most of whom were women (65.6%) with a mean age of 49 years. Most patients had uterine cancer (23%) and leukemia (9.8%). We identified problems in the two-dimensional structure of the PIPS by presenting three inadequate fit indices. Adequate reliability was observed in both domains. Regarding the avoidance domain, there was a correlation with a magnitude > 0.30 with the depression domain of the HADS, and correlations with a magnitude < 0.30 with the anxiety domain of the HADS, the PCS domains, and the Barthel Index. The cognitive fusion domain did not correlate with any of these scales (P > 0.05). No ceiling or floor effects were observed.
conclusionThe Brazilian version of the PIPS is reliable; however, the instrument does not have a valid internal structure and the cognitive fusion domain is not a valid construct.
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.