ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2026
The Pain in Dystonia Scale (PIDS)-Validation in Craniofacial and Upper Limb Dystonia.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2026. 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
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPain is one of the most disabling non-motor symptoms in adult-onset isolated dystonia (AOID). The Pain in Dystonia Scale (PIDS) was developed and validated in cervical dystonia. Its applicability to other focal subtypes remains unknown.
objectivesTo validate the PIDS in patients with craniofacial and upper limb dystonia, expanding its use beyond cervical dystonia.
methodsWe conducted a two-phase cross-sectional validation study in independent cohorts from Calgary, Canada and Italy. The Calgary pilot cohort (n = 20) included participants with craniofacial and/or upper limb dystonia who completed the PIDS twice for test-retest reliability and a battery of comparator scales. The Italian cohort (n = 109) was recruited through the Italian Dystonia Registry and completed the PIDS after cross-cultural adaptation. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and distribution properties were assessed using established psychometric standards.
resultsPain was highly prevalent (90.0% Calgary; 96.3% Italy), with anatomical distribution varying by dystonia subtype. Internal consistency was high across both cohorts (Cronbach's alpha 0.82-0.96), with minimal floor and ceiling effects. Test-retest reliability in the pilot cohort was excellent (ICC = 0.85). Construct validity was supported by strong correlations between PIDS scores and established pain and quality-of-life measures. Functional impact and pain modulators were consistently reported across cohorts, with stress identified as the most frequent aggravating factor and rest and stretching as common relieving factors.
conclusionsThe PIDS demonstrates reliability, validity, and feasibility in craniofacial and upper limb dystonia, supporting its adoption for evaluating dystonia-related pain in clinical and research settings across the main focal subtypes.
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.