ArticlePain reports2026
Validation of a self-report measure for diagnostic screening and assessment in complex regional pain syndrome.
Article in Pain reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is an orphan condition with no interventions proven effective in large-scale clinical trials. In-person clinical evaluations are required to make a CRPS diagnosis and determine study eligibility, making recruitment for CRPS trials challenging. Objectives: We developed and validated a self-report measure of CRPS symptoms suitable for remote administration. Methods: We evaluated diagnostic accuracy of a self-report version of the CRPS Severity Score (CSS-SR) and assessed its validity relative to the original clinician-completed CSS (CSS-Clinician) in two samples: 112 postsurgical patients with total knee arthroplasty and 80 patients with CRPS and non-CRPS limb pain attending a chronic pain clinic. All patients completed the CSS-SR and underwent a semi-structured history and physical examination from which the CSS-Clinician was scored and a criterion-based Budapest CRPS diagnosis was determined. Results: There was good to excellent correspondence (intraclass correlations [ICCs]) between CSS-Clinician and CSS-SR total scores (postsurgical sample: ICCs = 0.86-0.92; pain clinic sample: ICC = 0.76). In the postsurgical sample, the 2 measures displayed good agreement regarding changes in CRPS features across 2 assessments 4 months apart (ICC = 0.84). The CSS-SR exhibited high diagnostic accuracy in receiver operating characteristic analyses (area under the curve = 0.84-0.94). In the pain clinic sample, a CSS-SR cutoff of ≥8 had a 79% probability of correctly predicting a Budapest CRPS diagnosis after full evaluation (sensitivity = 0.79, specificity = 0.79). Conclusion: The CSS-SR appears valid as a self-report measure of CRPS status and displays good accuracy as a remote diagnostic screening tool.
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.