CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 89Pediatric Pain Management TechniquesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pediatric Pain Screening Tool: rapid identification of risk in youth with pain complaints

Open access
Simons, Laura E., Smith, Allison, Ibagon, Camila, Coakley, Rachael, Logan, Deirdre E., Schechter, Neil, Borsook, David, Hill, Jonathan C.·2015·Pain
DOI 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000199PMC PMC4504741
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Moderate to severe chronic pain is a problem for 1.7 million children, costing $19.5 billion dollars annually in the United States alone. Risk-stratified care is known to improve outcomes in adults with chronic pain. However, no tool exists to stratify youth who present with pain complaints to appropriate interventions. The Pediatric Pain Screening Tool (PPST) presented here assesses prognostic factors associated with adverse outcomes among youth and defines risk groups to inform efficient treatment decision making. Youth (n = 321, ages 8-18, 90.0% Caucasian, 74.8% female) presenting for multidisciplinary pain clinic evaluation at a tertiary care center participated. Of these, 195 (61.1%) participated at 4-month follow-up. Participants completed the 9-item PPST in addition to measures of functional disability, pain catastrophizing, fear of pain, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Sensitivity and specificity for the PPST ranged from adequate to excellent, with regard to significant disability (78%, 68%) and high emotional distress (81%, 63%). Participants were classified into low- (11%), medium- (32%), and high- (57%) risk groups. Risk groups did not significantly differ by pain diagnosis, location, or duration. Only 2% to 7% of patients who met reference standard case status for disability and emotional distress at 4-month follow-up were classified as low risk at baseline, whereas 71% to 79% of patients who met reference standard case status at follow-up were classified as high risk at baseline. A 9-item screening tool identifying factors associated with adverse outcomes among youth who present with pain complaints seems valid and provides risk stratification that can potentially guide effective pain treatment recommendations in the clinic setting.

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/j.pain.0000000000000199

Cites

36 of 36 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?

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

Show all 37 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Simons, L. E., Smith, A., Ibagon, C., Coakley, R., Logan, D. E., Schechter, N., Borsook, D., & Hill, J. C.
Affiliations
Boston Children's Hospital (US)
ORCID
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2015-08
Volume
156
Issue
8
Pages
1511-1518
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000199
PMC
PMC4504741
OpenAlex
W2005555699
Cited by
89
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
7.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Keele Research Repository (Keele University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (8ULTR000170)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K24NS064050)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23HD067202)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
pediatric chronic pain, pain screening, risk stratification, prognostic factors, functional disability, pain catastrophizing, fear of pain, anxiety, depressive symptoms, emotional distress, multidisciplinary pain clinic, screening validity, treatment decision-making
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Anxiety, Child, Depression, Disability Evaluation, Fear, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Pain Measurement, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Risk Assessment, Early Diagnosis, Catastrophization, 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