ArticleCureus2026
Rasch Analysis of the Composite Autonomic Symptom Score-31 (COMPASS-31) Using Data From Chronic Pain Patients.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with pain experience autonomic symptoms that are assessed using the patient-reported outcome measure known as the Composite Autonomic Symptom Score-31 (COMPASS-31).
objectivesThis study aimed to analyze the Dutch version of the COMPASS-31 using Rasch analysis.
methodsSixty-two patients completed the Dutch version of the COMPASS-31. The sample population comprised 62 patients (35 female; 27 male), with a mean age of 56.9 years (SD=13.7). Rasch analysis was conducted using Winsteps® Rasch Measurement Version 5.6.0 (Winsteps, Beaverton, Oregon, USA).
resultsThe COMPASS-31 domains performed moderately in a group of patients with pain. Infit and outfit indices of the domains were reasonable. Person reliability is below 0.8, the minimum level required for serious decision-making. Item reliability was moderate, except for the gastrointestinal domain, which was good. Only the orthostatic, gastrointestinal, and pupillomotor domains can differentiate between the two patient groups. Not all items within the domains measure a single unidimensional variable, one of the prerequisites of a Rasch model. The probability curve of the different domains worked moderately well. The patients could discriminate among four item levels.
conclusionOur data did not align with the Rasch model. The analysis failed to confirm the scale's reliability, as the domains could differentiate only one or two levels of autonomic symptoms among patients with chronic pain. Person reliability falls below 0.8, the minimum threshold required for meaningful decision-making. Only the orthostatic, gastrointestinal, and pupillomotor domains can distinguish between the two patient groups, while the others identify only one level. This model misfit cannot be attributed solely to the COMPASS-31 instrument but also to the Rasch model assumptions that were not met, such as a small sample size and items with a skip-pattern design, which violate the assumption of local independence.
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.