Trial reportEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
Providing Feedback on Previous Pain Scores Did Not Affect Weekly Pain Variability: A Cohort-Nested Randomised Study.
Trial report in European journal of pain (London, England), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpinal pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and repeated symptom monitoring is increasingly used to capture its fluctuating nature. However, repeated pain assessments may be influenced by prior responses, potentially affecting longitudinal patterns of pain reporting. This study examined whether providing feedback on prior pain scores influenced within-person variability in weekly pain intensity ratings and retention over 60 weeks.
methodsThis randomised study evaluating a methodological feature of repeated pain assessment was embedded within a cohort of adults with spinal pain referred to an outpatient hospital clinic. Participants (n = 2448) were randomised 1:1 to weekly pain intensity ratings (0-10 numerical rating scale) either with feedback ('You answered [X] last week') or without feedback. Analyses included participants with ≥ 40% valid responses (n = 1883), of whom 948 received feedback and 935 did not. The primary outcome was within-person variability in pain intensity, quantified using the root mean square of successive differences. Secondary outcomes included additional fluctuation metrics and the number of weeks with missing responses.
resultsNo meaningful between-group differences were observed for the primary outcome (mean difference -0.04 points [95% confidence interval -0.08 to 0.01]) or secondary outcomes, including retention rates. Sensitivity analyses yielded consistent findings.
conclusionsProviding participants with feedback on their previous pain score did not meaningfully influence within-person pain variability or retention during 60 weeks of weekly monitoring. These findings aid the interpretation of repeated longitudinal pain assessments by showing that the observed variability was robust to this specific study design. SIGNIFICANCE: This randomised study showed that providing participants with feedback on prior pain scores did not meaningfully alter weekly pain variability or retention during 60 weeks of longitudinal monitoring. These findings contribute to the interpretation of repeated longitudinal pain assessments in spinal pain research and suggest that weekly pain reporting patterns are robust to prior-pain feedback during long-term symptom monitoring.
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.