Validity of weekly recall ratings of average pain intensity in neck pain patients

ObjectiveRatings of usual pain over a period of 1 week are commonly used to rate a patient's usual level of pain intensity. This study investigated the validity of weekly recall pain ratings and biasing effects of pain levels on these ratings.MethodsSeventy-eight patients presenting to a chiropractic outpatient clinic with nonspecific neck pain completed a 7-day diary rating their pain 4 times each day on an 11-point numerical rating scale. From these 28 ratings, the patients' “actual average” pain was computed. On day 8, patients were asked to rate their current pain, as well as recall their pain “on average,” at its “worst,” and at its “least” over the previous week.ResultsRecall of average pain over the previous week was shown to be a valid measure using ratings of actual pain as the criterion standard (Pearson r = 0.95). The error between actual and recall readings was random and consistent across all levels of actual pain. Patients were also able to accurately recall their pain at its worst (r = 0.93) and at its least (r = 0.92) over the preceding week. In regression analyses, there were no appreciable biasing effects on the recall of average pain of either current pain at the time of recall, or of pain at its worst or at its least during the recall period.ConclusionThese results suggest that recall ratings of pain intensity may be valid for use in clinical research and practice on patients with nonspecific neck pain.     

Pain assessment in patients with low back pain: comparison of weekly recall and momentary electronic data.

Electronic data collection for monitoring pain has become increasingly popular in clinical research. Past research has shown that electronic diaries improve the timeliness of receipt of data, contribute to higher rates of compliance, and are preferred by patients over paper diaries, and this research suggests that electronic diaries that capture current pain at the moment of reporting result in more reliable ratings than recalled pain ratings. This study compared differences of momentary pain intensity ratings on an electronic visual analog scale (VAS) with weekly recalled pain on a 0 to 10 scale. We asked 21 patients with chronic low back pain to monitor their current pain at least once a day by using a VAS for up to 1 year with a palmtop computer. They were also called once a week and asked to rate their recalled weekly pain orally on a numeric scale from 0 to 10. Patients entered data electronically on average 357 times, for an average of 7.8 times a week. We found that (1) weekly recalled pain agreed highly (r > .90) with averaged momentary pain assessments, (2) neither frequency of electronic monitoring nor variability in momentary pain ratings (high standard deviations) contributed to degree of agreement between momentary and recalled pain, and (3) a ceiling effect was observed in VAS pain ratings as compared with numeric pain ratings. These findings suggest that, among many individuals, weekly recalled pain might be just as useful as momentary data collected through electronic data entry. PERSPECTIVE: Some believe that remembered pain is problematic because of recall bias and that data from frequent momentary pain ratings with electronic diaries are more valid. This study demonstrates that recalled pain is as valid as momentary data for many patients.     

The Effect of Neuroticism on the Recall of Persistent Low-Back Pain and Perceived Activity Interference

The assessment of persistent pain often relies on recalling and then summarizing the entire pain experience using a single rating. Newer methodologies, such as the Original Pain Recall Assessment, ask people to recall the pain they experienced over a specific period of time by tracing a single line in a graph to represent their pain levels. One advantage of this approach is that one can compare recalled levels of pain with actual daily diary pain ratings. This methodology was used to investigate the effects of neuroticism on the recall of levels and patterns of persistent pain. The study involved 70 participants who completed a measure of neuroticism, depressive symptoms, and up to 15 daily diaries that asked for ratings of pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, and activity interference due to pain. Following completion of the daily diary period, the participants were asked to recall the entire diary period using the Original Pain Recall Assessment methodology. The analyses revealed that higher levels of neuroticism were related to significantly better recall of the variability of pain unpleasantness over time. Furthermore, individuals who reported higher levels of depressive symptoms were less accurate in the recall of pain in general.PerspectiveMemory for pain is crucial in the assessment of pain, with little research devoted to the study of this topic. The current study demonstrates that people higher on neuroticism had better recall of pain unpleasantness, and people with higher levels of depressive symptoms had poorer recall of pain in general.     

Assessor status influences pain recall.

Anecdotal clinical reports suggest that patients report differing levels of pain, depending on the status within the medical hierarchy of the individual gathering the pain rating. This observation has clinical relevance, given the practice of delegating the assessment of pain to lower status clinic staff members. In this study, both pain and mood were assessed in 70 patients diagnosed with low back pain at pretreatment, immediately after epidural lumbar injection, and again 2 weeks later by phone. At the 2-week follow-up, patients were also asked to recall the postprocedural rating that they had given immediately after the injection. This rating was obtained by either the treating physician or by a research assistant who was present at the time of injection, on a randomly determined basis. Current ratings of pain and mood did not differ for either group before the epidural injection, after the epidural injection, or at the 2-week follow-up. Two-week recall of postprocedural pain did, however, differ depending on assessor status. Those called by the physician provided recalled pain ratings that closely matched the ratings provided immediately after the procedure. Those called by the research assistant provided ratings that were 86% higher (that is, worse) than their original ratings. This status-driven bias in recalled postprocedural pain reporting is discussed in the context of social demands inherent in the physician-patient relationship, with implications for assessing treatment effectiveness in clinical practice and research. PERSPECTIVE: Accurate assessment of patients' pain is critical to effective pain management and treatment planning. This study found evidence of a status-based bias in which physicians elicited lower ratings of previously experienced pain associated with treatment procedures than did staff members of lower status.     

The reliability and validity of pain interference measures in persons with spinal cord injury.

The current study compared the psychometric properties of 2 commonly used measures of pain-related interference, the Graded Chronic Pain (GCP) Disability scale and 3 modified versions of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Interference scale. Participants were 127 persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) who reported pain on a survey. The results suggest that the GCP Disability scale and 3 versions of the BPI Interference scale are reliable and valid measures of pain-related interference in persons with SCI and pain. All 4 measures evidenced excellent internal consistency. The composite scores and individual items of the GCP Disability scale and each version of the BPI Interference scale were significantly related to average pain intensity during the past week and a global measure of psychological functioning. Finally, as pain intensity ratings increased (from mild to moderate to severe), so did the composite and item-level ratings of interference for each version of the BPI Interference scale and GCP Disability scale. Strengths and weaknesses of each measure for use with persons with disability and pain are discussed. PERSPECTIVE: The GCP Disability scale and 3 versions of the BPI Interference scale (modified for use in persons with disabilities) appear to be reliable and valid measures of pain-related interference in persons with SCI. Future research should examine their psychometric properties in other disability populations.     

Accuracy of recall of usual pain intensity in back pain patients

Pain intensity ratings of 'usual' pain, or pain 'on average', are gaining in popularity since they are arguably a more realistic measure of a patient's pain status than the single snapshot of 'current' pain. An alternative to the 'actual average' of ratings obtained from multiple measures is the single rating of patients' recall of their 'usual' pain over a period of time, usually 1 week. The use of such a scale relies on the assumption that patients can accurately recall their 'usual' pain. Although accuracy of memory for pain has been investigated, most studies have failed to use appropriate statistical analyses for accuracy (validity). In this study, 200 back pain patients completed four daily recordings of pain intensity over 7 days. These were averaged to compute 'actual average' pain intensity. The next day, patients estimated their pain over the week at its 'least', 'worst' and 'on average' ('usual') as well as recording their 'current' pain intensity. Using the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) to compute accuracy, the single rating asking patients to estimate their pain 'on average' over the week was found to be an accurate measure of 'actual average' pain intensity (ICC=0.82) and more accurate than 'current' pain (ICC=0.66). Although some composite measures of single ratings gave more accurate estimates of 'actual average' pain, this was not considered sufficient advantage to advocate their use. The results of this study propose the single rating of pain 'on average' as a valid and practical measure of a patient's pain intensity over a period of 1 week.     

Comparison of daily and weekly retrospectively reported pain intensity in patients with localized and generalized musculoskeletal pain

The purpose of the study was to compare daily and weekly recalled pain intensity over time and their correspondence with real-time pain intensity in patients with localized (LP) and generalized (GP) musculoskeletal pain. Daily recalled pain, averaged over seven consecutive days, and weekly recalled pain at day 8 were recorded on 100 mm visual analogue scales monthly over 4 months for 40 LP and 50 GP patients. Multiple real-time pain ratings on numerical rating scales (0–10) were averaged over the week for 23 LP and 33 GP patients in Month 4. Reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and the standard deviations of the repeated measurements.Daily pain ratings were lower than weekly ratings across the 4-month period. Reliability was lower for weekly than for daily recalled pain in the GP group, and lower than in the LP group. These results were independent of the magnitude of pain intensity. No difference was found between daily recalled and real-time ratings. The ICC was higher between daily and real-time ratings than between weekly and real-time ratings in Month 4. Weekly ratings were higher than real-time ratings in the GP group, and the overestimation increased with increasing pain intensity.The results of the present study indicated that reliability was improved by using ratings of daily recalled pain averaged over a week rather than single ratings of weekly recalled pain in subjects with localized or generalized pain. Weekly recalled pain was overestimated in subjects exhibiting generalized pain and high pain intensity.     

Validity of 24-h recall ratings of pain severity: biasing effects of "Peak" and "End" pain

Despite the frequent use of pain recall ratings in clinical research, there remains doubt about the ability of individuals to accurately recall their pain. In particular, previous research indicates the possibility that the most pain experienced during a recall period and the most recent pain experienced (known as peak and end effects, respectively) might bias recall ratings. The current study used data from a published clinical trial to determine the relative validity of a 24-h recall rating of average post-operative pain and the nature and extent of any biasing influence of peak and end effects on nine separate 24-h recall ratings. The results supported a statistically significant but small biasing influence of both peak and end pain. Also, the influence of peak pain was stronger than that of end pain. However, the biasing impact of both peak and end pain together was very small, suggesting that 24-h recall ratings are adequately valid indicants of average pain for patients participating in post-surgery clinical pain trials.     

Cancer breakthrough pain characteristics and responses to treatment at a VA medical center

The purpose of this study is to analyze cancer breakthrough pain (BP) characteristics and how BP responds to conventional cancer pain management. Seventy-four cancer pain patients with worst pain severity >or=4 out of 10 completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Short Form, Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy and Breakthrough Pain Questionnaires (BPQ) at an initial interview. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) cancer pain management guidelines were followed. Pain syndromes and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) orally were determined. One-week follow-up assessments were obtained in 66 patients with BPI and BPQ. The BP characteristics were similar at both time points. On day 1, 52 patients (70%) had BP, and the BP was unpredictable in 30 patients (58%). The median time to worst BP severity was 3 min. Patients with BP had significantly higher worst pain (P<0.001). At week 1, the median MEDD doubled from 60 to 120 mg orally, and the number of patients who received adjuvant analgesics doubled from 31.1% (23 patients) on day 1 to 62.2% (41 patients). At week 1, 21 patients (32%) remained without BP, 21 patients (32%) were classified as BP responders and 24 patients (36%) were BP non-responders. The mean pain relief was similar for all three subgroups, i.e. around 80%. Compared to BP responders, BP non-responders had significantly higher worst pain (P<0.0001), average pain (P<0.004), and higher BPI interference parameters and shorter time to worst pain severity. The study confirmed the applicability of the BPQ to an US veteran population, and that pain management following the AHCPR guidelines is effective for a group of patients with cancer related BP. Underlying pain syndromes and the BP location may influence the response of BP to treatment. Patients with bone pain located in the spine, back, and pelvis may be at risk for resistant BP.     

Reconstructing the Past on the Original Pain Recall Assessment Form (OPRA)

The Original Pain Recall Assessment form (OPRA) is a technique that allows people to report on their pattern of pain over time. This investigation reports on the psychometric properties of the OPRA. Our results are analyzed from a cognitive-behavioral perspective. Correlation analyses on data from 72 respondents indicate that participants' patterns of symptoms recalled on the OPRA over a 28-day period were positively related to previous daily diary reports. Symptom ratings on an adapted OPRA showed different patterns of association with past symptom reports in distinct subgroups. A hypothesized, primacy recency effect of the diary procedure on symptom recall was supported. Statistics designed for use with paired, ordered categorical data showed acceptable agreement between diary ratings and those made at recall. In a basic research setting, the form offers the potential to evaluate individual correlates of pain recall. It can also be used at an individual level to describe the character of disagreement with prior ratings.PerspectiveThis article presents the psychometric properties of a pain-assessment procedure. Our results suggest that the way people recall their symptoms is related to cognitive, emotional, and behavioral correlates of the pain experience. The importance of individual differences in overt and covert behaviors and their relationship to persistent pain complaints warrants further attention.     

Does the peak-end phenomenon observed in laboratory pain studies apply to real-world pain in rheumatoid arthritics?

Laboratory studies and investigations of patients undergoing painful procedures have compared recalled pain to an average of multiple momentary reports taken throughout the painful experience. This work has shown that recalled ratings of pain are more closely associated with a combination of peak pain and pain proximal to the recall ratings than an average of all momentary reports. However, these studies have examined recalled pain over relatively short periods, usually under 1 hour. In this study of 32 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, momentary pain ratings taken over a 7-day period were compared with pain recalled on the eighth day. Analyses confirmed that a combination of peak and recent pain was a better predictor of recalled patient pain than was a simple average of all momentary pain reports. These results extend our understanding of how individuals remember pain and suggest alternative methods for assessing recalled pain.     

Longitudinal documentation of cancer pain management outcomes: a pilot study at a VA medical center

We measured pain outcomes in a cohort of patients with cancer pain in a general hematology/oncology setting at a Veterans Administration Medical center (VA). The outcomes included pain relief, pain severity, changes in pain severity, interference scores, symptom distress, quality of life (QOL), and satisfaction. Seventy-four (74) consecutive patients with worst cancer-related pain equal to or greater than 4/10 were recruited. Cancer pain diagnoses were made and the cancer pain management guidelines of the United States Agency for Health Care Policy and Research were followed. Patients were followed weekly using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), medication diary, satisfaction questionnaire, visual analogue quality of life scale (VASQOL) and record of side effects for 3 weeks. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G) and Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (MSAS-SF) were used at initial and final interviews. The mean initial worst pain severity was 8.3 (range 4-10) and mean pain relief was 40% (range 0-100). By week 1, the majority of patients achieved pain relief of >/=80%, with a corresponding decrease in worst pain severity and pain interference scores. Pain continued to decrease over three weeks. At week 3, there was a significant improvement in the MSAS-SF psychological symptom distress subscale (P = 0.02). The average number of opioid-related side effects was 5 and remained steady over time. Most patients felt "quite a bit" or "very much" satisfied at all weeks. There was a significant improvement in VASQOL (P < 0.005) and in FACTG SUMQOL scores (P = 0.007). This experience demonstrates that cancer pain management can result in measurable and significant changes in pain relief, pain severity, pain interference scores, psychological symptom distress, and QOL scores.     

Sex Differences in Pain Intensity in Adolescents Suffering From Cancer: Differences in Pain Memories?

Although sex differences have been investigated in chronic pain populations, little is known about sex differences in the pain experience of paediatric oncology patients and also whether their parents rate the pain experience differently for boys and girls. The aim of the present study was to determine if (1) boys and girls with cancer differ in current perception and past recollection of cancer-related pain and (2) if adolescents' and parents' pain ratings differ in relation to the sex of the adolescent. One hundred twelve adolescents with malignant diagnoses (12 to 18 years) and their parents participated in the study. Girls reported higher pain intensity within the last 7 days and 4 weeks despite similar diagnosis, physical status, duration of diagnoses, and main pain causes. When asked for pain intensity that dated back in time, parent and adolescent ratings diverged, with a trend for parents to reporting higher pain intensity in boys and lower pain intensity in girls, particularly for pain in the preceding 7 days. The present study provides preliminary evidence for sex differences in the recalled pain experience of adolescents with malignant diagnoses. Although boys and girls experience present pain similarly and hence should be treated similarly, girls recall higher pain intensity than boys. Future studies should address whether negative memories in girls play a significant role and may have an impact on girls' well-being and pain-related distress. Additionally, psychosocial factors such as gender role expectations may need to be investigated. Parental variables and their impact on parents' pain ratings, especially for ratings of precedent pain, warrants further investigation.PerspectiveGirls with malignant diagnoses differ from boys in their recalled pain intensity ratings, with girls reporting higher pain intensity. Additional pain management strategies referring to the memory of pain may need to be implemented.     

Flecainide for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: a Phase II trial

BACKGROUND: Management of neuropathic pain is challenging. Medications that interfere with sodium channel transport, such as lidocaine, mexilitene and flecainide, are promising as analgesics. OBJECTIVE: In a general population of patients with a working diagnosis of neuropathic pain, whether if flecainide produces enough of an improvement in pain to warrant further clinical study is determined. DESIGN: Phase I/II prospective exploratory clinical trial. Eligible patients were observed for week 1, then 50 mg flecainide was administered twice daily for week 2 and then administered 100 mg twice daily for week 3. SETTING/ SUBJECTS: Multi-institutional members of the Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group. Patients had neuropathic pain diagnosed by their oncologists as defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain and a diagnosis of cancer or AIDS. MEASUREMENTS: The Wisconsin Brief Pain Inventory was used. The primary endpoint was a decrease of 3 points (0-10 numerical scale) or a decrease of 50% in the worst pain rating at either day 15 or day 22 relative to the average of days 1 and 8 ratings. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were registered for the study. Four patients were ineligible. Of the remaining 15, one was unevaluable due to incomplete pain rating. Four out of 14 patients had an average drop of 5 points or 53% in their worst pain ratings on a 0-10 numerical scale of pain. No patients withdrew from study because of toxicity. There were no life-threatening or lethal toxicities. All patients were alive at the time of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Flecainide produced a 30% response rate. Response in this study was defined to be highly relevant and clinically significant reduction in pain. The drug merits study in a randomized placebo-controlled trial.     

Conversion from standard opioid therapy to once-daily oral extended-release hydromorphone in patients with chronic cancer pain

This open-label, multicenter study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of conversion to once-daily OROS hydromorphone from previous opioid agonist therapy in patients with chronic cancer pain. Patients were stabilized on their previous therapy before conversion at a 5:1 ratio of morphine sulfate to hydromorphone hydrochloride. The OROS hydromorphone dose was titrated over 3 - 21 days to achieve effective analgesia and was maintained for up to 14 days. Efficacy was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Adverse events and vital signs were monitored. Dose stabilization was achieved in 119 of the 127 (94%) patients who received the study medication; in 77%, stabilization was achieved with no titration steps. Mean BPI pain intensity ratings and BPI pain interference scores decreased significantly after OROS hydromorphone treatment compared with pretreatment values. Mean pain-relief level remained stable after conversion and throughout treatment with OROS hydromorphone. Adverse events were as expected for cancer patients receiving opioid agonists. There were no clinically significant changes in vital signs.     

Dynamic cancer pain management outcomes: the relationship between pain severity, pain relief, functional interference, satisfaction and global quality of life over time

To examine the relationship between different cancer pain management outcomes over time, 74 patients with the worst cancer related pain rated as four or greater on an 11-point numeric scale were followed weekly with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and the satisfaction questionnaire and global visual analogue scale quality of life (VASQOL) for 3 weeks. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed at weekly time points. The analyses indicated that pain outcomes can be categorized into separate QOL and satisfaction paths linked by the worst pain severity. In the QOL path, the worst pain severity predicted a pain interference score, which consistently predicted VASQOL. For the satisfaction path, independent predictors were pain relief at Week 1, and worst pain severity and changes in worst pain severity at Week 2. No variables predicted satisfaction at Week 3. The data suggest that satisfaction and quality of life may be independent outcomes of pain management. The timing of assessment may itself be important.     

Comparative responsiveness of pain measures in cancer patients

Brief measures to assess and monitor pain in cancer patients are available, but few head-to-head psychometric comparisons of different measures have been reported. Baseline and 3-month data were analyzed from 274 patients enrolled in the Indiana Cancer Pain and Depression (INCPAD) trial. Participants completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the PEG (a 3-item abbreviated version of the BPI), the short form (SF)-36 pain scale, and a pain global rating of change measure. The global rating was used as the criterion for standardized response mean and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. To assess responsiveness to the trial intervention, we evaluated standardized effect size statistics stratified by trial arm. All measures were responsive to global improvement, discriminated between participants with and without improvement, and detected a significant intervention treatment effect. Short and longer measures were similarly responsive. Also, composite measures that combined pain severity and interference into a single score (BPI total, PEG, SF-36 pain) performed comparably to separate measures of each domain (BPI severity and BPI interference). PERSPECTIVE: Pain measures as brief as 2 or 3 items that provide a single score are responsive in patients with cancer-related pain. Ultra-brief measures offer a valid and efficient means of assessing and monitoring pain for the clinical management as well as research of cancer-related pain.