Cited by 116Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UseHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS pain interference short forms, brief pain inventory, PEG, and SF-36 bodily pain subscale

Open access
Kean, Jacob, Monahan, Patrick O., Kroenke, Kurt, Wu, Jingwei, Yu, Zhangsheng, Stump, Tim E., Krebs, Erin E.·2016·Medical Care

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity to change and the responsiveness to intervention of the PROMIS Pain Interference short forms, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), 3-item PEG scale, and SF-36 Bodily Pain subscale in a sample of patients with persistent musculoskeletal pain of moderate severity. METHODS: Standardized response means, standardized effect sizes, and receiver operating curve analyses were used to assess change between baseline and 3-month assessments in 250 participants who participated in a randomized clinical effectiveness trial of collaborative telecare management for moderate to severe and persistent musculoskeletal pain. RESULTS: The BPI, PEG, and SF-36 Bodily Pain measures were more sensitive to patient-reported global change than the PROMIS Pain Interference short forms, especially for the clinically improved group, for which the change detected by the PROMIS short forms was not statistically significant. The BPI was more responsive to the clinical intervention than the SF-36 Bodily Pain and PROMIS Pain Interference measures. Post hoc analyses exploring these findings did not suggest that differences in content or rating scale structure (number of response options or anchoring language) adequately explained the observed differences in the detection of change. CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical trial, the BPI and PEG measures were better able to detect change than the SF-36 Bodily Pain and PROMIS Pain Interference measures.

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/mlr.0000000000000497

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • The PEG is a validated three-item measure of pain intensity and interference with internal consistency between .73 and .89.

    “The validated 3-item PEG score, is the average of pain intensity (P), interference with enjoyment in life (E), and interference with general activity (G) over the past week (Cronbach’s α = .73-.89).42–45”

    From Improving well-being for individuals with persistent pain after surgery for breast cancer, lobular carcinoma in situ, or ductal carcinoma in situ: A randomized clinical trial (2022) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Methods > Measures section describes the PEG as a validated three-item measure with one average-pain item and two interference items, scored as their mean. Our copy does not give a Cronbach’s α range of .73–.89 or specify the past-week recall period; searches for those details did not find them. No page number is available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]Medicine Io Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research 2011 National Academies Press Washington, DC 22553896
  2. [26]McDowell I Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires 2006 Oxford University Press New York 3rd ed.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kean, J., Monahan, P. O., Kroenke, K., Wu, J., Yu, Z., Stump, T. E., & Krebs, E. E.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2016-04
Volume
54
Issue
4
Pages
414-421
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2266967734
Cited by
116
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
8.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (IIR 07-119, IK2 RX000879)
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001108)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR064081)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
PROMIS pain interference, Brief Pain Inventory, pain interference, responsiveness to intervention, chronic musculoskeletal pain, patient-reported outcomes, standardized response mean, receiver operating characteristic
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Telemedicine, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Musculoskeletal 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