Cited by 34Delphi Technique in ResearchMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationAnesthesia and Pain Management

Validation and application of a core set of patient-relevant outcome-domains to assess the effectiveness of multimodal pain therapy (VAPAIN)—a study protocol

Open access
Kaiser, Ulrike, Kopkow, Christian, Deckert, Stefanie, Sabatowski, Rainer, Schmitt, Jochen·2015·BMJ Open

Abstract

Introduction: Multimodal pain therapy (MPT) has been established accounting for biopsychosocial consideration in diagnostic and therapy. MPT seems to be effective, but comparability of studies is limited due to diversity of study designs and outcome measurements. The presented study aims to develop a core outcome set consisting of a minimum of outcome measures deemed necessary for medical and therapeutic decision-making, which must be measured in all clinical trials and non-randomised intervention studies. Methods and analysis: The study consists of several parts. First, the development and recommendation of preliminary core outcome domains will be based on results of a systematic review and structured online surveys. Participants of the expert panel are representatives of methodological, medical, physiotherapeutic, psychotherapeutic profession and patients suffering from chronic pain (n=25). Subsequently, candidate instruments to measure preliminary core outcome domains will be recommended by these experts. Therefore, systematic reviews on measurement properties of preliminary outcome measures will be conducted and finalised in a consensus meeting. Consented instruments and lacking psychometric properties of relevant instruments will be addressed and validated in the following part, a prospective multicentre study in multimodal pain centres on approximately 300 patients with chronic pain. Based on all previous results, a core outcome set for MPT measured in effectiveness studies and daily recordkeeping will be finalised by consensus. Statistical analyses will be performed according to methodological standards (COSMIN). Ethics and dissemination: The methods and procedure of the study are developed in compliance with the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and Good Epidemiologic Practice. Recruitment of study participants will require approval of the study by the responsible ethics committee and signed informed consent from each participant. Pseudonymised data will be used for statistical analysis.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008146

Cites

33 of 33 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaiser, U., Kopkow, C., Deckert, S., Sabatowski, R., & Schmitt, J.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
  • Zentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung (DE)
Corresponding author
Kaiser, Ulrike
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-11
Volume
5
Issue
11
Pages
e008146
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2191583673
Cited by
34
References
33
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
21.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Qucosa (Saxon State and University Library Dresden) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GY1326)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
core outcome set, multimodal pain management, chronic pain, patient-relevant outcomes, outcome measure validation, expert consensus, COSMIN
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Psychometrics, Chronic Pain, Patient Outcome Assessment

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