Cited by 130Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UsePain Mechanisms and Treatments

Estimating the prevalence of chronic pain: validation of recall against longitudinal reporting (the HUNT pain study).

Landmark, Tormod, Romundstad, Pål, Dale, Ola, Borchgrevink, Petter C., Kaasa, Stein·2012·Pain

Abstract

Methods for classifying chronic pain in population studies are highly variable, and prevalence estimates ranges from 11% to 64%. Limited knowledge about the persistence of pain and the validity of recall questions defining chronic pain make findings difficult to interpret and compare. The primary aim of the current study was to characterize the persistence of pain in the general population and to validate recall measures against longitudinal reporting of pain. A random sample of 6419 participants from a population study (the HUNT 3 study in Norway) was invited to report pain on the SF-8 verbal pain rating scale every 3 months over a 12-month period and to report pain lasting more than 6 months at 12-month follow-up. Complete data were obtained from 3364 participants. Pain reporting was highly stable (intraclass correlation 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.67), and the prevalence of chronic pain varied considerably according to level of severity and persistence: 31% reported mild pain or more, whereas 2% reported severe pain on 4 of 4 consecutive measurements. When defined as moderate pain or more on at least 3 of 4 consecutive measurements, the prevalence was 26%. Compared with the longitudinal classification, a cross-sectional measure of moderate pain or more during the last week on the SF-8 scale presented a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 84%, and a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 90% when combined with a 6-month recall question. Thus pain reporting in the general population is stable and cross-sectional measures may give valid prevalence estimates of chronic pain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2012.02.004

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Landmark, T., Romundstad, P., Dale, O., Borchgrevink, P. C., & Kaasa, S.
Affiliations
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Corresponding author
Landmark, Tormod
Venue
Pain
Published
2012-07
Volume
153
Issue
7
Pages
1368-1373
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010268698
Cited by
130
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
8.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
chronic pain, prevalence estimation, pain persistence, sensitivity and specificity, pain intensity, HUNT study
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Norway, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Mental Recall, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence, Young Adult, Chronic Pain

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