CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UsePediatric Pain Management Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What Determines Whether a Pain is Rated as Mild, Moderate, or Severe? The Importance of Pain Beliefs and Pain Interference

Open access
Jensen, Mark P., Tomé-Pires, Catarina, de la Vega, Rocío, Galán, Santiago, Solé, Ester, Miró, Jordi·2017·The Clinical Journal of Pain
DOI 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000429PMC PMC5332521
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Reliable and valid measures of pain intensity are needed to accurately evaluate the efficacy of pain treatments. Perhaps with the exception of faces pain intensity scales, which are thought to reflect both pain intensity and pain affect, the other most commonly used pain intensity scales-Numerical Rating Scales (NRSs), Visual Analog Scales, and Verbal Rating Scales (VRSs)-are all thought to reflect primarily pain intensity or the magnitude of felt pain. However, to our knowledge, this assumption has not been directly tested for VRSs. METHODS: We evaluated whether VRS pain severity ratings are influenced by pain beliefs, catastrophizing, or pain interference over and above any effects of pain intensity, as measured by a NRS, in 4 samples of individuals with physical disabilities and chronic pain. RESULTS: As hypothesized, and while controlling for pain intensity as measured by a NRS, higher scores on factors representing pain interference with function, pain catastrophizing, and a number of pain-related beliefs were all associated with a tendency for the study participants to rate their pain as more severe on a VRS. DISCUSSION: These findings indicate VRSs of pain severity cannot necessarily be assumed to measure only pain intensity; they may also reflect patient perceptions about pain interference and beliefs about their pain. Clinicians and researchers should take these findings into account when selecting measures and when interpreting the results of studies using VRSs as outcome measures.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000429

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • Many new and effective pain management concepts have emerged during the six years since the Hughes review, such as emphasizing the importance of pain interference indicators.

    “Secondly, many new and effective pain management concepts have emerged in the field of pain management during these six years, such as emphasizing the importance of pain interference indicators [32].”

    From Acceptance and commitment therapy for patients with chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis on psychological outcomes and quality of life (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Abstract (page unavailable) reports that pain interference with function was associated with how participants with disabilities and chronic pain rated pain severity. The Discussion (page unavailable) advises researchers to consider factors beyond pain intensity when interpreting ratings. The paper does not establish that this was a new, effective pain-management concept that emerged during the specified six-year period. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Jensen, M. P., Tomé-Pires, C., de la Vega, R., Galán, S., Solé, E., & Miró, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Unit for the Study and Treatment of Pain—ALGOS
  • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
  • Institut de Recerca Biomèdica Catalunya Sud (ES)
Corresponding author
Jensen, Mark P.
ORCID
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2017-05
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
414-421
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/ajp.0000000000000429
PMC
PMC5332521
OpenAlex
W2508908484
Cited by
107
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P01HD033988)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
pain intensity, verbal rating scale, pain beliefs, pain catastrophizing, pain interference, numerical rating scale, visual analogue scale, chronic pain, physical disability, pain measurement validity
MeSH terms
Culture, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Severity of Illness Index, Catastrophization, Pain Perception, 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