Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures in chronic pain conditions with central sensitization- a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify available patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to evaluate central sensitization (CS) manifestations in chronic pain conditions and evaluate the quality of psychometric properties of those instruments. METHODS: A comprehensive search across multiple electronic databases was conducted for relevant studies following the specification of eligibility criteria and development of key search terms. After screening and full-text review, the methodological quality of studies and psychometric properties of PROMs were assessed and summarized using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and scoring manual. The results were statistically pooled in a meta-analysis, specifically test-retest reliability, based on data availability and consistency of findings across studies. RESULTS: A total of fifty-eight studies evaluating eight instruments in adult patients with chronic pain were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was varied. Most identified PROMs have limited evidence regarding their measurement properties. The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) received the highest overall ratings for most measurement properties among all the instruments, followed by Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ) and Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire (FSQ). Based on pooled data from available studies, the test-retest reliability of the CSI was found to be excellent, with an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95) for overall chronic pain, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93) for chronic musculoskeletal pain and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88-0.99) for chronic neck pain. PSQ also demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability, showing an ICC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.72-0.99) for chronic pain. CONCLUSION: Although not all properties have been studied, the CSI, which received the highest overall ratings, could serve as a reliable PROM assessing CS in chronic pain. More studies should be performed to comprehensively evaluate all measurement properties of all included instruments.
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 | 0.039 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".