Cited by 36Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesMental Health Research TopicsCancer survivorship and care

Pain, Fatigue, and Cognitive Symptoms Are Temporally Associated Within but Not Across Days in Multiple Sclerosis

Open access
Kratz, Anna L., Murphy, Susan L., Braley, Tiffany J.·2017·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective To examine the temporal associations, within-day and day-to-day, between pain, fatigue, depressed mood, and cognitive function in multiple sclerosis (MS). Design Repeated-measures study involving seven days of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of symptoms five times a day. Multilevel mixed models were used to analyze data. Setting Community. Participants Ambulatory adults (N=107) with MS. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s) EMA of pain, fatigue, depressed mood, and cognitive function rated on a 0–10 scale. Results Fatigue and pain were linked within-day such that higher pain was associated with higher subsequent fatigue (B=0.09, p=0.04; likewise, higher fatigue was associated with higher pain in the following time frame (B=0.05, p=0.04). Poorer perceived cognitive function preceded increased subsequent pain (B=0.08, p=0.007) and fatigue (B=0.10, p=0.01) within-day. Depressed mood was not temporally linked with other symptoms. In terms of day-to-day effects, a day of higher fatigue related to decreased next day fatigue (B=−0.16, p=0.01), and a day of higher depressed mood related to increased depressed mood the next day (B=0.17, p=0.01). There were no cross-symptom associations from one day to the next. Conclusions Findings provide new insights on how common symptoms in MS relate to each other and vary within and over days. Pain and fatigue show evidence of a dynamic bidirectional relation over the course of a day, and worsening of perceived cognitive function preceded worsening of both pain and fatigue. Most temporal associations between symptoms occur within the course of a day, with relatively little carry-over from one day to the next.

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/j.apmr.2017.07.003

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Methodological studies of EMA of symptoms demonstrate that surveys relying on respondent recall, such as the baseline measures in this study, are biased toward peak (worst) and recent symptoms.

    “Methodological studies of EMA of symptoms demonstrate surveys that rely on respondent recall, such as the baseline measures in this study, are biased toward peak (worst) and recent symptoms76–78; EMA ratings may provide a more valid estimate of true symptom intensity compared to standardized surveys.”

    From Ecological momentary assessment of pain, fatigue, depressive, and cognitive symptoms reveals significant daily variability in multiple sclerosis (2017) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Study Limitations section (page not available in our copy) reports higher symptom ratings on surveys than on EMA, but says the reason is unclear. It does not establish that recall surveys are biased toward peak or recent symptoms. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kratz, A. L., Murphy, S. L., & Braley, T. J.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Kratz, Anna L.
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
98
Issue
11
Pages
2151-2159
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2735763993
Cited by
36
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R03NR014515)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K01AR064275)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, pain, fatigue, cognitive symptoms, depressive mood, perceived cognitive function
MeSH terms
Ecological Momentary Assessment, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Cognition, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Pain, Pain Measurement, Sex Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Time Factors

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