Cited by 121Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research

Psychological Factors Associated with Idiopathic Arm Pain

Ring, David, Kadzielski, John, Malhotra, Leah, Lee, Sang-Gil P., Jupiter, Jesse B.·2005·The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery

Abstract

Background Psychological and personality factors may be as important as, or more important than, pathological processes in the experience of pain, particularly in patients whose pain has a vague or uncertain source. Methods Validated measures of psychological factors were used to prospectively evaluate fifty-six patients with a single, discrete pain complaint and fifty-one patients with vague, diffuse idiopathic arm pain. Pain was assessed with use of 10-point Likert scales, the Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the Wahler Physical Symptom Inventory, the Body Consciousness Questionnaire, and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale. Results Patients with idiopathic arm pain reported more severe pain at rest (p = 0.02) and with repeated movements (p = 0.01); exhibited higher levels of cognitive anxiety (p = 0.008); demonstrated greater helplessness (p = 0.002), pain magnification (p = 0.007), and overall catastrophic coping mechanisms for dealing with pain (p = 0.005); and showed a tendency for increased somatic complaining (p = 0.07). A multiple logistic regression model identified the total score on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale as the sole predictor of idiopathic pain complaints. Conclusions Pain complaints without a clear physical cause are common and are frustrating for both patients and physicians. Awareness of the psychological factors associated with idiopathic arm pain may lead to more effective interventions designed to improve c…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2106/jbjs.d.01907

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ring, D., Kadzielski, J., Malhotra, L., Lee, S.-G. P., & Jupiter, J. B.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
Published
2005-02
Volume
87
Issue
2
Pages
374-380
ISSN
0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979935457
Cited by
121
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Keywords
psychological factors, pain catastrophizing, cognitive anxiety, helplessness, pain coping, somatic symptoms, body awareness, health locus of control, diffuse pain
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Arm, Body Image, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Prospective Studies, Somatoform Disorders, Cohort Studies

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