The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The association between pain and disability
Abstract
A clearer understanding of how pain intensity relates to disability could have important implications for pain treatment goals and definitions of treatment success. The objectives of this study were to determine the optimal pain intensity rating (0-10 scale) cutpoints for discriminating disability levels among individuals with work-related carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and low back (LB) injuries, whether these cutpoints differed for these conditions and for different disability measures, and whether the relationship between pain intensity and disability was linear in each injury group. Approximately 3 weeks after filing work injury claims, 2183 workers (1059 CTS; 1124 LB) who still had pain completed pain and disability measures. In the LB group, pain intensity rating categories of 1-4, 5-6, and 7-10 optimally discriminated disability levels for all four disability measures examined. In the CTS group, no pain intensity rating categorization scheme proved superior across all disability measures. For all disability measures examined, the relationship between pain intensity and disability level was linear in the CTS group, but nonlinear in the LB group. Among study participants with work-related back injuries, when pain level was 1-4, a decrease in pain of more than 1-point corresponded to clinically meaningful improvement in functioning, but when pain was rated as 5-10, a 2-point decrease was necessary for clinically meaningful improvement in functioning. The findings indicate that classifying numerical pain ratings into categories corresponding to levels of disability may be useful in establishing treatment goals, but that classification schemes must be validated separately for different pain conditions.
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
Farrar, J. T., Young, J. P., LaMoreaux, L., Werth, J. L., & Poole, M. R. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00349-9 · Cited by 5,808
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000062554.74615.4c · Cited by 4,700
A Study of the Natural History of Back Pain: Part I
ROLAND, M., & MORRIS, R. (1983) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004 · Cited by 3,395 · cited 12×
“…to clinical change have been demonstrated for both the RDQ (Beurskens et al., 1996; Deyo, 1986; Jensen et al., 1992; Roland and Fairbank, 2000; Roland and Morris, 1983; Turner et al., 2003; Underwood et al., 1999) and the CTSAQ FS (Amadio et al., 1996; Gay et al., 2003; Katz et al., 1996;…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAssessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica
Patrick, D. L., Deyo, R. A., Atlas, S. J., Singer, D. E., Chapin, A., & Keller, R. B. (1995) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199509000-00011 · Cited by 760
Jensen, M. P., Strom, S. E., Turner, J. A., & Romano, J. M. (1992) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(92)90156-6 · Cited by 187
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Amadio, 1996, Outcome assessment for carpal tunnel surgery: the relative responsiveness of generic, arthritis-specific, disease-specific, and physical examination measures., J Hand Surg, 21A, 338, 10.1016/S0363-5023(96)80340-6 · DOI · Paper page
- Beurskens, 1996, Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments., Pain, 65, 71, 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00149-2 · DOI · Paper page
- Bombardier, 2000, Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations., Spine, 25, 3100, 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00003 · DOI · Paper page
- Bombardier, 2001, Minimally clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures., J Rheumatol, 28, 431
- Deyo, 1986, Comparative validity of the Sickness Impact Profile and shorter scales for functional assessment in low-back pain., Spine, 11, 951, 10.1097/00007632-198611000-00017 · DOI · Paper page
- Gay, 2003, Comparative responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand, the carpal tunnel questionnaire, and the SF-36 to clinical change after carpal tunnel release., J Hand Surg, 28A, 250, 10.1053/jhsu.2003.50043 · doi:10.1053/jhsu.2003.50043
- Jensen, 2001, Pain site and the effects of amputation pain: further clarification of the meaning of mild, moderate, and severe pain., Pain, 91, 317, 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00459-0 · DOI · Paper page
- Katz, 1996, Workers compensation recipients with carpal tunnel syndrome: the validity of self-reported health measures., Am J Public Health, 86, 52, 10.2105/AJPH.86.1.52 · DOI
- Levine, 1993, A self-administered questionnaire for the assesment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome., J Bone Joint Surg Am, 75, 1585, 10.2106/00004623-199311000-00002 · DOI · Paper page
- Roland, 2000, The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire., Spine, 25, 3115, 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00006 · DOI · Paper page
- Scudds, 2000, Pain factors associated with physical disability in a sample of community-dwelling senior citizens., J Gerontol: Med Sci, 55A, M393, 10.1093/gerona/55.7.M393 · DOI
- Serlin, 1995, When is cancer pain mild, moderate, or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function., Pain, 61, 277, 10.1016/0304-3959(94)00178-H · DOI · Paper page
- Turner, 2003, Comparison of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and generic health status measures., Spine, 28, 1061, 10.1097/01.BRS.0000062007.95197.08 · DOI
- Underwood, 1999, Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures., Spine, 24, 1104, 10.1097/00007632-199906010-00010 · DOI
- Von Korff, 1992, Grading the severity of chronic pain., Pain, 50, 133, 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90154-4 · DOI · Paper page
- White, 1980, A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity., Econometrica, 48, 817, 10.2307/1912934 · DOI · Paper page
- Zelman, 2003, Development of a metric for a day of manageable pain control: derivation of pain severity cut-points for low back pain and osteoarthritis., Pain, 106, 35, 10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00274-4 · DOI
Cited by
Boonstra, A. M., Schiphorst Preuper, H. R., Reneman, M. F., Posthumus, J. B., & Stewart, R. E. (2008) · International Journal of Rehabilitation Research · doi:10.1097/mrr.0b013e3282fc0f93 · Cited by 1,051
Comprehensive Review of Epidemiology, Scope, and Impact of Spinal Pain
Manchikanti, L. (2009) · Pain Physician · doi:10.36076/ppj.2009/12/e35 · Cited by 721
Boonstra, A. M., Schiphorst Preuper, H. R., Balk, G. A., & Stewart, R. E. (2014) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2014.09.014 · Cited by 691
Lee, H., Hübscher, M., Moseley, G. L., Kamper, S. J., Traeger, A. C., Mansell, G., & McAuley, J. H. (2015) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000146 · Cited by 526
Gerbershagen, H. J., Rothaug, J., Kalkman, C. J., & Meissner, W. (2011) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aer195 · Cited by 527
Metadata
- Authors
- Turner, J. A., Franklin, G., Heagerty, P. J., Wu, R., Egan, K., Fulton-Kehoe, D., Gluck, J. V., & Wickizer, T. M.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 307-314
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2067584396
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 4.30
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The association between pain and disability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.010
- The paper
- Turner, J. A., Franklin, G., Heagerty, P. J., Wu, R., Egan, K., Fulton-Kehoe, D., Gluck, J. V., & Wickizer, T. M. (2004). The association between pain and disability. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.010
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.
