The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The influence of preamputation pain on postamputation stump and phantom pain
Abstract
The significance of preamputation pain for the development of postamputation stump and phantom pain has been discussed over the years and is still a matter of dispute. It has been argued that preamputation pain increases the risk of phantom pain and that phantom pain is a revivification of pain experienced before the amputation. The purpose of this prospective study was to clarify the relation between preamputation pain and phantom pain. Fifty-six patients scheduled for amputation of a lower limb were interviewed the day before the amputation about preamputation pain and about stump and phantom pain 1 week, 3 and 6 months after the amputation. Pain was quantitated and described using a visual analogue scale (VAS), 10 different word descriptors, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and the patients' own words. If phantom pain was present patients were asked if the pain was similar to any pain experienced before the amputation. At each postoperative interview patients were asked to recall preamputation pain intensity. Location of pain and analgesic requirements were registered. Preamputation pain significantly increased the incidence of stump pain (P = 0.04) and phantom pain (P = 0.04) after 1 week and the incidence of phantom pain after 3 months (P = 0.03). About 42% of the patients reported that their phantom pain resembled the pain they had experienced at the time of the amputation. However, there was no relation between the patients' own opinion about similarity between preamputation pain and phantom pain and the actual similarity found when comparing pre- and postoperative recordings of pain. Patients significantly overestimated preamputation pain intensity after 6 months.
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
Coderre, T. J., Katz, J., Vaccarino, A. L., & Melzack, R. (1993) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(93)90161-h · Cited by 1,966
Redelmeier, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1996) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(96)02994-6 · Cited by 1,078
Cited by
Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention
Kehlet, H., Jensen, T. S., & Woolf, C. J. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68700-x · Cited by 4,086
Self-citationChronic post-surgical pain: 10 years on
Macrae, W. A. (2008) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aen099 · Cited by 992
Phantom limb pain: a case of maladaptive CNS plasticity?
Flor, H., Nikolajsen, L., & Staehelin Jensen, T. (2006) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1991 · Cited by 905
Self-citationTransition from acute to chronic postsurgical pain: risk factors and protective factors
Katz, J., & Seltzer, Z. (2009) · Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics · doi:10.1586/ern.09.20 · Cited by 782
Phantom Pain, Residual Limb Pain, and Back Pain in Amputees: Results of a National Survey
Ephraim, P. L., Wegener, S. T., MacKenzie, E. J., Dillingham, T. R., & Pezzin, L. E. (2005) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.031 · Cited by 743
Metadata
- Authors
- Nikolajsen, L., Ilkjær, S., Krøner, K., Christensen, J. H., & Jensen, T. S.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1997-09
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 393-405
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2095582861
- Cited by
- 394
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.68
- 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 influence of preamputation pain on postamputation stump and phantom pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00061-4
- The paper
- Nikolajsen, L., Ilkjær, S., Krøner, K., Christensen, J. H., & Jensen, T. S. (1997). The influence of preamputation pain on postamputation stump and phantom pain. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00061-4
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.