The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Correlation of patient and caregiver ratings of cancer pain
Open accessAbstract
Undertreatment of cancer pain is widely recognized. This study sought to determine if inadequate communication about pain intensity between health care providers and their patients could represent a significant factor interfering with the control of cancer pain. One hundred and three consecutive patients with solid tumors and normal mental status examinations were screened within 48 hr during two study periods. The intensity of patient pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) which was given to the patient, his/her primary care nurse, house officer and medical oncology fellow. Sixty-three percent of the patients were taking narcotic analgesics on admission to the hospital. Although there was a correlation between patient and health care provider ratings for the entire group, no statistically significant correlation between the patient's VAS pain score and that of his/her nurse, house officer, or oncology fellow was present in the 44 patients with VAS greater than or equal to 4.0. Agreement between patient and caregiver VAS scores was also examined. When patients rated their pain from 7-10 on the VAS scale, nurses, house officers, and oncology fellows would place their rating of the patient's pain in this range 7%, 20%, and 27% of the time, respectively. Improved correspondence was noted with lower patient VAS scores. This study demonstrates that health care provider impressions of patient pain are often quite different than those of the patient and that these discrepancies are most pronounced in patients with significant pain. The routine use of pain assessment tools, such as the VAS, could enhance patient-caregiver communication and improve care for patients with cancer pain.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Ohnhaus, E. E., & Adler, R. (1975) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(75)90075-5 · Cited by 797
Cited by
Prevalence of pain in patients with cancer: a systematic review of the past 40 years
van den Beuken-van Everdingen, M. H. J., de Rijke, J. M., Kessels, A. G., Schouten, H. C., van Kleef, M., & Patijn, J. (2007) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdm056 · Cited by 1,923
The unequal burden of pain: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in pain
Green, C. R., Anderson, K. O., Baker, T. A., Campbell, L. C., Decker, S., Fillingim, R. B., Kaloukalani, D. A., Lasch, K. E., Myers, C., Tait, R. C., et al. (2003) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1526-4637.2003.03034.x · Cited by 1,248
Fromme, E. K., Eilers, K. M., Mori, M., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Beer, T. M. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.03.025 · Cited by 555
Di Maio, M., Gallo, C., Leighl, N. B., Piccirillo, M. C., Daniele, G., Nuzzo, F., Gridelli, C., Gebbia, V., Ciardiello, F., De Placido, S., et al. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2014.57.9334 · Cited by 497
Graves, K. D., Arnold, S. M., Love, C. L., Kirsh, K. L., Moore, P. G., & Passik, S. D. (2007) · Lung Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2006.10.001 · Cited by 338
Metadata
- Authors
- Grossman, S. A., Sheidler, V. R., Swedeen, K., Mucenski, J., & Piantadosi, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1991-02
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 53-57
- ISSN
- 0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2093134136
- Cited by
- 434
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Correlation of patient and caregiver ratings of cancer pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0885-3924(91)90518-9
- The paper
- Grossman, S. A., Sheidler, V. R., Swedeen, K., Mucenski, J., & Piantadosi, S. (1991). Correlation of patient and caregiver ratings of cancer pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-3924(91)90518-9
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.