Cited by 13Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Treatment

Biobehavioral Assessments in BACPAC: Recommendations, Rationale, and Methods

Open access
Greco, Carol M, Wasan, Ajay D, Schneider, Michael J, Mehling, Wolf, Williams, David A, Darwin, Jessa, Harte, Steven E·2023·Pain Medicine

Abstract

The Biobehavioral Working Group of BACPAC was charged to evaluate a range of psychosocial, psychophysical, and behavioral domains relevant to chronic low back pain, and recommend specific assessment tools and procedures to harmonize biobehavioral data collection across the consortium. Primary references and sources for measure selection were the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials, the Minimum Data Set from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Task Force on Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, and NeuroQOL. The questionnaire's recommendations supplemented the NIH HEAL Common Data Elements and BACPAC Minimum Data Set. Five domains were identified for inclusion: Pain Characteristics and Qualities; Pain-Related Psychosocial/Behavioral Factors; General Psychosocial Factors; Lifestyle Choices; and Social Determinants of Health/Social Factors. The Working Group identified best practices for required and optional Quantitative Sensory Testing of psychophysical pain processing for use in BACPAC projects.

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 · 10.1093/pm/pnac175

Cites

73 of 73 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?

  • ACT was selected as the psychological intervention for the BEST Trial based on literature support and its potential for improving difficult-to-treat subgroups with pain, such as older or less well-educated patients.

    “ACT was selected as the psychological intervention based on the strength of literature support as an evidence-based treatment recommended for use in the setting of chronic pain management and its potential for improving difficult to treat subgroups with pain, such as older or less well-educated patients.3,5–7”

    From Design and implementation of online acceptance and commitment therapy with enhanced therapist support for chronic low back pain (ACT for PAIN) (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Introduction and Results and Recommendations describe BACPAC assessment measures, not why ACT was selected for the BEST Trial. Searches for the BEST Trial, ACT, and older or less well-educated patients found no passage addressing that selection or the claimed subgroup benefit. The References list an acceptance-based pain-treatment study, but its title alone does not establish the claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is an evidence-based treatment recommended for use in chronic pain management.

    “ACT was selected as the psychological intervention based on the strength of literature support as an evidence-based treatment recommended for use in the setting of chronic pain management and its potential for improving difficult to treat subgroups with pain, such as older or less well-educated patients.3,5–7”

    From Design and implementation of online acceptance and commitment therapy with enhanced therapist support for chronic low back pain (ACT for PAIN) (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    In Results and Recommendations (page unavailable), the paper recommends measuring pain acceptance with a questionnaire, not using Acceptance and Commitment Therapy as a treatment. Its References list an acceptance-based treatment study, but the paper does not state that ACT is evidence-based or recommended for chronic pain management. Searches for ACT and acceptance-based treatment found no such recommendation. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    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

1 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [55]Yu L, Buysse DJ, Germain A, et al Development of short forms from the PROMIS™ sleep disturbance and sleep-related impairment item banks. Behav Sleep Med 2011; 10(1): 6– 24. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2012.636266. 22250775 PMC3261577 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [71]Price DD, Mao J, Frenk H, Mayer DJ. The N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist destromethorphan selectively reduces temporal summation of second pain in man. Pain 1994; 59(2): 165– 74. 7892014

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greco, C. M., Wasan, A. D., Schneider, M. J., Mehling, W., Williams, D. A., Darwin, J., & Harte, S. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Greco, Carol M
Venue
Pain Medicine
Published
2022-11-12
Volume
24
Issue
Supplement_1
Pages
S61-S70
ISSN
  • 1526-2375 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4637
OpenAlex
W4308825559
Cited by
13
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pain Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • The Back Pain Consortium
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
  • National Institutes of Health
  • NIH (1U19AR076725-01, 1UG3AR076568-01, 1U19AR076737-01, 1U19AR076734-01)
  • Early Phase Pain Investigation Clinical Network Data Coordinating Center (3U24NS113844-01)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
chronic low back pain, psychosocial factors, pain behavior, pain characteristics, quantitative sensory testing, social determinants of health, lifestyle factors, patient-reported outcomes
MeSH terms
Humans, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Pain Measurement, Research Design, United States, Low Back Pain, Advisory Committees

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