Cited by 140Mental Health Research TopicsPain Management and Opioid UseMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Real-Time Data Collection for Pain: Appraisal and Current Status

Stone, Arthur A., Broderick, Joan E.·2007·Pain Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Real-time data capture (RTDC) techniques have rapidly developed with the advent of computer and information technology. We plan to discuss the use of RTDC in the assessment of pain, including issues pertaining to its rationale, sampling protocols, and our opinion on the current status of the methodology. DESIGN: This is "thought" piece involving no systematic data collection methods. RESULTS: We described the rationale for using RTDC, including issues in recall bias, the desire for detailed information about pain, and the ability to examine within-person associations between pain and other variables. The mechanics of RTDC implementations were discussed with a focus on sampling protocols and data collection methods. The final section concerned the status of RTDC. Current acceptance of RTDC is evaluated and three issues in the science of RTDC were discussed: the interpretation of differences between recall and the average of momentary assessments for the same period; if RTDC is advancing our understanding of pain; and, the issue of what consumers of pain assessments actually desire. RTDC extensions to feedback based on momentary assessments are also discussed. CONCLUSION: Real-time data collection can be a useful methodology for improving our understanding of pain and especially of its dynamic nature in real-world settings.

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 · 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00372.x

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • Desktop- or laptop-based monitoring of panic disorder symptoms via daily or weekly electronic diaries is likely biased by memory effects because clients complete these diaries retrospectively rather than in real-time.

    “when desktop PCs or laptops are used to monitor symptoms of PD to identify factors that cue panic attacks and avoidance, clients typically use daily or weekly electronic diary entries, which are likely biased by memory effects because clients must complete these diaries retrospectively and not in real-time [22–28].”

    From Efficacy of a hybrid online training for panic symptoms and agoraphobia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. (2014) · cites this paper as [24]

    In “Why Should You Consider Using RTDC in Your Research or Practice?” (page unavailable), the paper warns that retrospective symptom reports can be distorted by memory and urges caution with end-of-day diaries. It does not establish that people with panic disorder typically use daily or weekly desktop- or laptop-based diaries, or that those diaries must be completed retrospectively. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Stone A, Shiffman S, Atienza A, Nebling L. The Science of Real-Time Data Capture. New York: Oxford University; 2007.
  2. Brunswik E. Systematic and Representative Design of Psychological Experiments. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press; 1949.
  3. Shiffman S, Hufford M, Paty J. Subject experience diaries in clinical research. Part 1. The patient expe- rience movement. Appl Clin Trials 2001;10:46-56.
  4. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Med Care 1992;30:473-83.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stone, A. A., & Broderick, J. E.
Affiliations
Stony Brook University (US)
Venue
Pain Medicine
Published
2007-10
Volume
8
Issue
suppl 3
Pages
S85-S93
ISSN
  • 1526-2375 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4637
OpenAlex
W2011693047
Cited by
140
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
FWCI
5.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (AR052170-01, U01AR052170)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
real-time data acquisition, pain assessment, momentary assessment, recall bias, sampling protocols, within-person associations
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Humans, Medical Records, Memory, Pain, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Mental Recall, Time

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