Cited by 48Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UsePediatric Pain Management Techniques

Measuring troublesomeness of chronic pain by location

Open access
Parsons, Suzanne, Carnes, Dawn, Pincus, Tamar, Foster, Nadine, Breen, Alan, Vogel, Steven, Underwood, Martin·2006·BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current measures of pain assess the relative contribution of pain in different body regions to the overall impact of pain. We developed a series of questions to measure the relative 'troublesomeness' of pain in different body regions (the "troublesomeness grid"). The study aimed to determine whether the "troublesomeness grid" is an appropriate measure to assess the severity of pain in different body regions, allowing the comparative severity of pain in different body regions to be assessed. METHODS: We used data from a pilot for a population survey of pain (N = 205) and from the population survey itself (N = 2504) to assess the 'troublesomeness grid's performance. Specifically, its face and content validity using overall and item non-completion rates; its criterion related validity by exploring the relationship between troublesomeness and standard measures of pain, disability, distress and health utility for the five body regions most commonly affected by chronic pain; and its reliability and reproducibility in a test/re-test study. RESULTS: The troublesomeness grid appeared to have good face validity as it had good completion rates. It also appeared to have good content validity as the percentage agreement between the grid and the pain manikin was high (over 90%). In terms of criterion related validity, troublesomeness was most strongly correlated with pain intensity and health related quality of life, but less with disability and distress. The test-retest reliability was between 80% and 90% for the majority of body regions examined. CONCLUSION: The troublesomeness grid is well completed and appears to be an appropriate tool to assess the comparative severity of pain in different body regions.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2474-7-34

Cites

17 of 17 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?

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: 1

  1. Bolton JE Fish RG Responsiveness of the Revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire European Journal of Chiropractic 1997 45 9 14

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parsons, S., Carnes, D., Pincus, T., Foster, N., Breen, A., Vogel, S., & Underwood, M.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
  • Keele University (GB)
  • Health Sciences University (GB)
  • University College of Osteopathy (GB)
Corresponding author
Parsons, Suzanne
Venue
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published
2006-04-05
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
34-34
ISSN
1471-2474 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1776840375
Cited by
48
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (submittedVersion)
  • Keele Research Repository (Keele University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • Royal Holloway Digital Repository (Royal Holloway University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Royal Holloway Digital Repository (Royal Holloway University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (PC6/CSA04/03)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › 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
chronic pain, pain localization, face validity, content validity, criterion validity, test-retest reliability, health-related quality of life, pain intensity, disability, distress
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Cross-Sectional Studies, Follow-Up Studies, Health Surveys, Humans, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Pain, Pain Measurement, Pilot Projects

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