Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Novel Tool for the Assessment of Pain: Validation in Low Back Pain

Open access
Scholz, Joachim, Mannion, Richard J., Hord, Daniela E., Griffin, Robert S., Rawal, Bhupendra, Zheng, Hui, Scoffings, Daniel, Phillips, Amanda, Guo, Jianli, Laing, Rodney J. C., Abdi, Salahadin, Decosterd, Isabelle, Woolf, Clifford J.·2009·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adequate pain assessment is critical for evaluating the efficacy of analgesic treatment in clinical practice and during the development of new therapies. Yet the currently used scores of global pain intensity fail to reflect the diversity of pain manifestations and the complexity of underlying biological mechanisms. We have developed a tool for a standardized assessment of pain-related symptoms and signs that differentiates pain phenotypes independent of etiology. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a structured interview (16 questions) and a standardized bedside examination (23 tests), we prospectively assessed symptoms and signs in 130 patients with peripheral neuropathic pain caused by diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or radicular low back pain (LBP), and in 57 patients with non-neuropathic (axial) LBP. A hierarchical cluster analysis revealed distinct association patterns of symptoms and signs (pain subtypes) that characterized six subgroups of patients with neuropathic pain and two subgroups of patients with non-neuropathic pain. Using a classification tree analysis, we identified the most discriminatory assessment items for the identification of pain subtypes. We combined these six interview questions and ten physical tests in a pain assessment tool that we named Standardized Evaluation of Pain (StEP). We validated StEP for the distinction between radicular and axial LBP in an independent group of 137 patients. StEP identified patients with radicular pain with high sensitivity (92%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 83%-97%) and specificity (97%; 95% CI 89%-100%). The diagnostic accuracy of StEP exceeded that of a dedicated screening tool for neuropathic pain and spinal magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, we were able to reproduce subtypes of radicular and axial LBP, underscoring the utility of StEP for discerning distinct constellations of symptoms and signs. CONCLUSIONS: We present a novel method of identifying pain subtypes that we believe reflect underlying pain mechanisms. We demonstrate that this new approach to pain assessment helps separate radicular from axial back pain. Beyond diagnostic utility, a standardized differentiation of pain subtypes that is independent of disease etiology may offer a unique opportunity to improve targeted analgesic treatment.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000047

Cites

9 of 9 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

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 9 references

Cited by

See all 262

Metadata

Authors
Scholz, J., Mannion, R. J., Hord, D. E., Griffin, R. S., Rawal, B., Zheng, H., Scoffings, D., Phillips, A., Guo, J., Laing, R. J. C., Abdi, S., Decosterd, I., & Woolf, C. J.
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2009-04-07
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
e1000047
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2158456401
Cited by
262
References
9
FWCI
19.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Novel Tool for the Assessment of Pain: Validation in Low Back Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000047
The paper
Scholz, J., Mannion, R. J., Hord, D. E., Griffin, R. S., Rawal, B., Zheng, H., Scoffings, D., Phillips, A., Guo, J., Laing, R. J. C., Abdi, S., Decosterd, I., & Woolf, C. J. (2009). A Novel Tool for the Assessment of Pain: Validation in Low Back Pain. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000047

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.