Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,494

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function

Serlin, Ronald C., Mendoza, Tito R., Nakamura, Yoshio, Edwards, Katherine R., Cleeland, Charles S.·1995·Pain
DOI 10.1016/0304-3959(94)00178-h
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As a way of delineating different levels of cancer pain severity, we explored the relationship between numerical ratings of pain severity and ratings of pain's interference with such functions as activity, mood, and sleep. Interference measures were used as critical variable to grade pain severity. We explored the possibility that pain severity could be classified into groupings roughly comparable to mild, moderate, and severe. Our hypothesis was that mild, moderate, and severe pain would differentially impair cancer patients' function. We were able to identify boundaries among these categories of pain severity in terms of their interference with function. We also examined the extent to which cancer patients from different language and cultural groups differ in their self-reported interference as a function of pain severity level. We found optimal cutpoints that form 3 distinct levels of pain severity that can be defined on a 0-10-point numerical scale. We determined that, based on the degree of interference with cancer patients' function, ratings of 1-4 correspond to mild pain, 5-6 to moderate pain, and 7-10 to severe pain. Our analysis illustrates that the pain severity-interference relationship is non-linear. These cutpoints were the same for each of the national samples in our analysis, although there were slight differences in the specific interference items affected by pain. These cutpoints might be useful in clinical evaluation, epidemiology, and clinical trials.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-3959(94)00178-h

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Cleeland, 1984, The impact of pain on the patient with cancer, Cancer, 54, 2635, 10.1002/1097-0142(19841201)54:2+<2635::AID-CNCR2820541407>3.0.CO;2-P · DOI
  2. Cleeland, 1990, Assessment of pain in cancer: measurement issues, Vol. 16, 47
  3. Cleeland, 1988, Multidimensional measurement of cancer pain: comparisons of US and Vietnamese patients, J. Pain Sympt. Manag., 3, 23, 10.1016/0885-3924(88)90134-0 · DOI
  4. Cleeland, 1994, Pain and its treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancer, New Engl. J. Med., 330, 592, 10.1056/NEJM199403033300902 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Daut, 1982, The prevalence and severity of pain in cancer, Cancer, 50, 1913, 10.1002/1097-0142(19821101)50:9<1913::AID-CNCR2820500944>3.0.CO;2-R · DOI
  6. Daut, 1983, Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases, Pain, 17, 197, 10.1016/0304-3959(83)90143-4 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Ferraz, 1990, Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of literate and illiterate patients with rheumatoid arithritis, J. Rheumatol., 17, 1022
  8. Lasagna, 1960, The clinical measurement of pain, Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 86, 28, 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1960.tb42788.x · DOI
  9. Laudico, 1993, Efficacy of oral morphine in 162 patients with cancer pain: a multicenter trial in Metro Manila, Philippine J. Surg. Spec., 48, 39
  10. Moinpour, 1989, Quality of life end points in cancer clinical trials: review and recommendations. (Review), J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 81, 485, 10.1093/jnci/81.7.485 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Ngelangel, 1993, Quality of life among Filipino cancer patients on one-month oral NSAID or morphine, Philippine J. Surg. Spec., 48, 99
  12. Turk, 1990, The robustness of an empirically derived taxonomy of chronic pain patients, Pain, 43, 27, 10.1016/0304-3959(90)90047-H · DOI · Paper page
  13. Turk, 1988, The disability determination dilemma: toward a multiaxial solution, Pain, 34, 217, 10.1016/0304-3959(88)90117-0 · DOI
  14. bon Korff, 1992, Grading the severity of chronic pain, Pain, 50, 133, 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90154-4 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Wallenstein, 1984, Measurement of pain and analgesia in cancer patients, Cancer, 53, 2260, 10.1002/cncr.1984.53.s10.2260 · DOI
  16. Wallenstein, 1980, Clinical evaluation of mild analgesics: the measurement of clinical pain, Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 10, 319S, 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1980.tb01816.x · DOI
  17. World Health Organization, 1986, Cancer Pain Relief

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Serlin, R. C., Mendoza, T. R., Nakamura, Y., Edwards, K. R., & Cleeland, C. S.
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1995-05
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
277-284
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0304-3959(94)00178-h
OpenAlex
W2001638015
Cited by
1,494
References
2
FWCI
15.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.