A comparison of pain measures used with patients with Fibromyalgia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison of pain measures used with patients with Fibromyalgia. Bigatti, S. M., & Cronan, T. A. (2002). Journal of Nursing Measurement, 10(1), 5–13. Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a painful and debilitating chronic condition of unknown etiology that primarily affects the musculoskeletal system of women and persons over age 40. Its dominant features include pain, fatigue, stiffness, disrupted sleep patterns, irritable bowel syndrome, anxiety, and depression (Bennett, 1996). The effect of these symptoms can lead to reduced functioning and disability. The diagnosis is often difficult and frustrating for patients and healthcare providers because there is no generally accepted biologic marker for FMS and the diverse symptoms require a long process of excluding other disorders. Because there is no cure, the focus is placed on managing symptoms, especially pain. Pain is the main complaint and, thus, the main treatment concern. The purpose of the study was to evaluate instruments used to assess pain and determine which was most useful in terms of validity, ease of administration, and scoring. In all, six scales were used: three measured pain and three measured related aspects of well-being. The pain scales were: (1) McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), widely used to measure pain in chronic pain populations and its three subcales: the Pain Rating Index (PRI), a measure of the sensory qualities and cognitive-affective characteristics of pain perception; the Present Pain Index (PPI), a measure of pain intensity; and the Number of Words Chosen Index (NWC), where participants select a word from each category only when they find a word that describes their pain, and the number of words subjects choose is used as a measure of the perceived pain intensity; (2) Manual Tender Point Exam (TPE), where participants are asked how much pain (on a scale from 1 to 10) they feel when the examiner manually applies 4 kg of pressure to each of 18 possible sites; and (3) Visual Analog Scale (VAS), a widely used pain evaluation instrument based on a straight line (10 cm long), scaled from 0 to 100, on which the patient marks the intensity of his or her pain. Other instruments included: (1) Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, with its three subscales (pain, functions, and symptoms), which measures perceived self-efficacy; 2) Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, which measures physical, psychological, social, and global well-being; and 3) Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) used to measure various aspects of sleep quality. The idiopathic chronic pain of patients with FMS has a strong psychological component. The VAS showed the highest correlations with measures of pain, fatigue, and stiffness. The VAS also has the advantage of being quick, concise, and easy to administer and score. Participants in the study felt comfortable and competent in indicating their pain on the VAS. However, a few words of caution must be added. The line must be free of marks that could possibly imply intervals of some sort, and the choice of words used for the anchors could sway where on the line the individual marks their pain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".