Self-reported questionnaires assessing body perception disturbances in adults with chronic non-cancer pain: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Body perception disturbances (BPD) are well documented in certain chronic pain populations [e.g., complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)], while being far less studied in chronic pain as a general condition. The aims of this scoping review are to identify the self-reported questionnaires used to assess BPD in individuals with chronic non-cancer pain and to refine the definition of the BPD construct as used in these questionnaires. Methods: A search strategy focusing on the concepts of "chronic pain", "body perception" and "questionnaire" was used across four databases. Each record was screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers, and data extraction was performed by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Results: Eighty-seven studies were included, comprising 18 different questionnaires-either directly related to BPD or containing relevant items. The three most commonly used questionnaires were the Bath Body Perception Disturbance Scale, the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire, and the Neurobehavioral Questionnaire. Appraisal of the construct derived from the questionnaire items identified five main facets: size, shape, cognitive neglect-like symptoms, proprioceptive awareness, and agency, along with 11 other less frequently addressed facets. The most represented clinical populations were CRPS (40 studies) and chronic low-back pain (20 studies). Discussion: A variety of self-reported questionnaires are available to assess BPD, but most are diagnosis- or body-region specific. To better assess BPD in individuals with chronic non-cancer pain, a consensus on the general definition and the key facets of the construct is needed.
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 | 0.016 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".