MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107183970 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.120335

Measuring Pain and Efficacy of Pain Treatment in Inflammatory Arthritis: A Systematic Literature Review

2012· review· en· W2107183970 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Matthias Englbrecht, Ingo H. Tarner, D. M. van der HEIJDE, Bernhard Manger, Claire Bombardier, Ulf Müller‐Ladner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rheumatology Supplement · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewPhysical therapyArthritisAlternative medicineIntensive care medicineMEDLINEInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available literature on measuring pain and the efficacy of pain treatment in inflammatory arthritis (IA), as an evidence base for generating clinical practice recommendations. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism 2008/2009 meeting abstracts, searching for studies evaluating clinimetric properties of pain measurement tools in IA (convergent validity, internal consistency, retest reliability, responsiveness, feasibility, and standardization). Studies that presented information on these properties were reviewed and their data were integrated into the pool of results available for pain measures in IA. RESULTS: In total, 51 articles were included in the review. Validated information on pain was available for tools covering different facets such as overall pain, anatomically specific pain, or a mixture of both. Data from these studies showed that single pain-related items such as the visual analog scale (VAS), numeric rating scale (NRS), or verbal rating scale (VRS) provide sufficient clinimetric information. Similar results were obtained for the pain subscales of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS/AIMS2) and the bodily pain subscale of the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Survey 36. Most clinimetric coefficients showed acceptable results with respect to validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change, while the degree of standardization and feasibility mostly filled at least 2 of 3 predefined criteria. CONCLUSION: A variety of pain measures are available to cover different aspects of pain such as intensity, frequency, or location. Single-item tools such as VAS, NRS, or VRS can be recommended to measure overall pain in clinical practice. If more specific issues need to be addressed, more sophisticated tools should be taken into account.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.006
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rheumatology SupplementSame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207