+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Socio-Demographics, Pain Characteristics, Quality of Life and Treatment Values Before and After Specialized Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Results from the Danish Clinical Pain Registry (PainData)

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background and Aims

          PainData is an electronic internet-based clinical pain registry established to improve the understanding and treatment of high-impact chronic pain. The primary aim of this paper is to describe socio-demographics, pain characteristics, quality of life, and treatment values at baseline and follow-up in individuals referred to public and private interdisciplinary pain centers in Denmark between 2018 and 2020.


          Self-reported patient-reported outcomes collected through PainData before (n=12,257) and after (n=4,111) treatment across 13 public and private interdisciplinary specialized pain centers in Denmark (87% of all pain centers in Denmark) are described.


          Mean duration of pain was 10 years, and one in three patients reported chronic widespread pain. More than 40% reported opioid use, and 50% had tried four or more different treatment modalities prior to referral. More than 60% reported poor sleep, severe fatigue, and memory and/or concentration deficits. Mean scores on pain catastrophizing, fear of movement, and pain-related disability were high, whereas scores on pain acceptance and self-efficacy were low. Physical and mental health were rated as poor and fair, respectively. One in four patients reported being very much improved or much improved after treatment. Items commonly reported after treatment were increased knowledge about pain, emotions and mood (66.5%), being better at accepting life with chronic pain (63.1%), and improved activity pacing (60.6%).


          The PainData registry, containing data from a large cohort of individuals, can help to improve the understanding and treatment of high-impact chronic pain, and collaborations with other researchers are welcome.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline.

          Many nonpharmacologic therapies are available for treatment of low back pain. To assess benefits and harms of acupuncture, back schools, psychological therapies, exercise therapy, functional restoration, interdisciplinary therapy, massage, physical therapies (interferential therapy, low-level laser therapy, lumbar supports, shortwave diathermy, superficial heat, traction, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasonography), spinal manipulation, and yoga for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain). English-language studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE (through November 2006) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2006, Issue 4). These electronic searches were supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and additional citations suggested by experts. Systematic reviews and randomized trials of 1 or more of the preceding therapies for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain) that reported pain outcomes, back-specific function, general health status, work disability, or patient satisfaction. We abstracted information about study design, population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and adverse events. To grade methodological quality, we used the Oxman criteria for systematic reviews and the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for individual trials. We found good evidence that cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise, spinal manipulation, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation are all moderately effective for chronic or subacute (>4 weeks' duration) low back pain. Benefits over placebo, sham therapy, or no treatment averaged 10 to 20 points on a 100-point visual analogue pain scale, 2 to 4 points on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, or a standardized mean difference of 0.5 to 0.8. We found fair evidence that acupuncture, massage, yoga (Viniyoga), and functional restoration are also effective for chronic low back pain. For acute low back pain (<4 weeks' duration), the only nonpharmacologic therapies with evidence of efficacy are superficial heat (good evidence for moderate benefits) and spinal manipulation (fair evidence for small to moderate benefits). Although serious harms seemed to be rare, data on harms were poorly reported. No trials addressed optimal sequencing of therapies, and methods for tailoring therapy to individual patients are still in early stages of development. Evidence is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of therapies for sciatica. Our primary source of data was systematic reviews. We included non-English-language trials only if they were included in English-language systematic reviews. Therapies with good evidence of moderate efficacy for chronic or subacute low back pain are cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise, spinal manipulation, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation. For acute low back pain, the only therapy with good evidence of efficacy is superficial heat.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies

            Introduction Many questions in medical research are investigated in observational studies [1]. Much of the research into the cause of diseases relies on cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. Observational studies also have a role in research into the benefits and harms of medical interventions [2]. Randomised trials cannot answer all important questions about a given intervention. For example, observational studies are more suitable to detect rare or late adverse effects of treatments, and are more likely to provide an indication of what is achieved in daily medical practice [3]. Research should be reported transparently so that readers can follow what was planned, what was done, what was found, and what conclusions were drawn. The credibility of research depends on a critical assessment by others of the strengths and weaknesses in study design, conduct, and analysis. Transparent reporting is also needed to judge whether and how results can be included in systematic reviews [4,5]. However, in published observational research important information is often missing or unclear. An analysis of epidemiological studies published in general medical and specialist journals found that the rationale behind the choice of potential confounding variables was often not reported [6]. Only few reports of case-control studies in psychiatry explained the methods used to identify cases and controls [7]. In a survey of longitudinal studies in stroke research, 17 of 49 articles (35%) did not specify the eligibility criteria [8]. Others have argued that without sufficient clarity of reporting, the benefits of research might be achieved more slowly [9], and that there is a need for guidance in reporting observational studies [10,11]. Recommendations on the reporting of research can improve reporting quality. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement was developed in 1996 and revised 5 years later [12]. Many medical journals supported this initiative [13], which has helped to improve the quality of reports of randomised trials [14,15]. Similar initiatives have followed for other research areas—e.g., for the reporting of meta-analyses of randomised trials [16] or diagnostic studies [17]. We established a network of methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to develop recommendations for the reporting of observational research: the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement. Aims and Use of the STROBE Statement The STROBE Statement is a checklist of items that should be addressed in articles reporting on the 3 main study designs of analytical epidemiology: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. The intention is solely to provide guidance on how to report observational research well: these recommendations are not prescriptions for designing or conducting studies. Also, while clarity of reporting is a prerequisite to evaluation, the checklist is not an instrument to evaluate the quality of observational research. Here we present the STROBE Statement and explain how it was developed. In a detailed companion paper, the Explanation and Elaboration article [18–20], we justify the inclusion of the different checklist items and give methodological background and published examples of what we consider transparent reporting. We strongly recommend using the STROBE checklist in conjunction with the explanatory article, which is available freely on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine (http://www.plosmedicine.org/), Annals of Internal Medicine (http://www.annals.org/), and Epidemiology (http://www.epidem.com/). Development of the STROBE Statement We established the STROBE Initiative in 2004, obtained funding for a workshop and set up a Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/). We searched textbooks, bibliographic databases, reference lists, and personal files for relevant material, including previous recommendations, empirical studies of reporting and articles describing relevant methodological research. Because observational research makes use of many different study designs, we felt that the scope of STROBE had to be clearly defined early on. We decided to focus on the 3 study designs that are used most widely in analytical observational research: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We organised a 2-day workshop in Bristol, UK, in September 2004. 23 individuals attended this meeting, including editorial staff from Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, International Journal of Epidemiology, JAMA, Preventive Medicine, and The Lancet, as well as epidemiologists, methodologists, statisticians, and practitioners from Europe and North America. Written contributions were sought from 10 other individuals who declared an interest in contributing to STROBE, but could not attend. Three working groups identified items deemed to be important to include in checklists for each type of study. A provisional list of items prepared in advance (available from our Web site) was used to facilitate discussions. The 3 draft checklists were then discussed by all participants and, where possible, items were revised to make them applicable to all three study designs. In a final plenary session, the group decided on the strategy for finalizing and disseminating the STROBE Statement. After the workshop we drafted a combined checklist including all three designs and made it available on our Web site. We invited participants and additional scientists and editors to comment on this draft checklist. We subsequently published 3 revisions on the Web site, and 2 summaries of comments received and changes made. During this process the coordinating group (i.e., the authors of the present paper) met on eight occasions for 1 or 2 days and held several telephone conferences to revise the checklist and to prepare the present paper and the Explanation and Elaboration paper [18–20]. The coordinating group invited 3 additional co-authors with methodological and editorial expertise to help write the Explanation and Elaboration paper, and sought feedback from more than 30 people, who are listed at the end of this paper. We allowed several weeks for comments on subsequent drafts of the paper and reminded collaborators about deadlines by e-mail. STROBE Components The STROBE Statement is a checklist of 22 items that we consider essential for good reporting of observational studies (Table 1). These items relate to the article's title and abstract (item 1), the introduction (items 2 and 3), methods (items 4–12), results (items 13–17) and discussion sections (items 18–21), and other information (item 22 on funding). 18 items are common to all three designs, while four (items 6, 12, 14, and 15) are design-specific, with different versions for all or part of the item. For some items (indicated by asterisks), information should be given separately for cases and controls in case-control studies, or exposed and unexposed groups in cohort and cross-sectional studies. Although presented here as a single checklist, separate checklists are available for each of the 3 study designs on the STROBE Web site. Table 1 The STROBE Statement—Checklist of Items That Should Be Addressed in Reports of Observational Studies Implications and Limitations The STROBE Statement was developed to assist authors when writing up analytical observational studies, to support editors and reviewers when considering such articles for publication, and to help readers when critically appraising published articles. We developed the checklist through an open process, taking into account the experience gained with previous initiatives, in particular CONSORT. We reviewed the relevant empirical evidence as well as methodological work, and subjected consecutive drafts to an extensive iterative process of consultation. The checklist presented here is thus based on input from a large number of individuals with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. The comprehensive explanatory article [18–20], which is intended for use alongside the checklist, also benefited greatly from this consultation process. Observational studies serve a wide range of purposes, on a continuum from the discovery of new findings to the confirmation or refutation of previous findings [18–20]. Some studies are essentially exploratory and raise interesting hypotheses. Others pursue clearly defined hypotheses in available data. In yet another type of studies, the collection of new data is planned carefully on the basis of an existing hypothesis. We believe the present checklist can be useful for all these studies, since the readers always need to know what was planned (and what was not), what was done, what was found, and what the results mean. We acknowledge that STROBE is currently limited to three main observational study designs. We would welcome extensions that adapt the checklist to other designs—e.g., case-crossover studies or ecological studies—and also to specific topic areas. Four extensions are now available for the CONSORT statement [21–24]. A first extension to STROBE is underway for gene-disease association studies: the STROBE Extension to Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative [25]. We ask those who aim to develop extensions of the STROBE Statement to contact the coordinating group first to avoid duplication of effort. The STROBE Statement should not be interpreted as an attempt to prescribe the reporting of observational research in a rigid format. The checklist items should be addressed in sufficient detail and with clarity somewhere in an article, but the order and format for presenting information depends on author preferences, journal style, and the traditions of the research field. For instance, we discuss the reporting of results under a number of separate items, while recognizing that authors might address several items within a single section of text or in a table. Also, item 22, on the source of funding and the role of funders, could be addressed in an appendix or in the methods section of the article. We do not aim at standardising reporting. Authors of randomised clinical trials were asked by an editor of a specialist medical journal to “CONSORT” their manuscripts on submission [26]. We believe that manuscripts should not be “STROBEd”, in the sense of regulating style or terminology. We encourage authors to use narrative elements, including the description of illustrative cases, to complement the essential information about their study, and to make their articles an interesting read [27]. We emphasise that the STROBE Statement was not developed as a tool for assessing the quality of published observational research. Such instruments have been developed by other groups and were the subject of a recent systematic review [28]. In the Explanation and Elaboration paper, we used several examples of good reporting from studies whose results were not confirmed in further research – the important feature was the good reporting, not whether the research was of good quality. However, if STROBE is adopted by authors and journals, issues such as confounding, bias, and generalisability could become more transparent, which might help temper the over-enthusiastic reporting of new findings in the scientific community and popular media [29], and improve the methodology of studies in the long term. Better reporting may also help to have more informed decisions about when new studies are needed, and what they should address. We did not undertake a comprehensive systematic review for each of the checklist items and sub-items, or do our own research to fill gaps in the evidence base. Further, although no one was excluded from the process, the composition of the group of contributors was influenced by existing networks and was not representative in terms of geography (it was dominated by contributors from Europe and North America) and probably was not representative in terms of research interests and disciplines. We stress that STROBE and other recommendations on the reporting of research should be seen as evolving documents that require continual assessment, refinement, and, if necessary, change. We welcome suggestions for the further dissemination of STROBE—e.g., by re-publication of the present article in specialist journals and in journals published in other languages. Groups or individuals who intend to translate the checklist to other languages should consult the coordinating group beforehand. We will revise the checklist in the future, taking into account comments, criticism, new evidence, and experience from its use. We invite readers to submit their comments via the STROBE Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/).
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008.

              Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential when evaluating many new treatments in health care; yet, current measures have been limited by a lack of precision, standardization, and comparability of scores across studies and diseases. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) provides item banks that offer the potential for efficient (minimizes item number without compromising reliability), flexible (enables optional use of interchangeable items), and precise (has minimal error in estimate) measurement of commonly studied PROs. We report results from the first large-scale testing of PROMIS items. Fourteen item pools were tested in the U.S. general population and clinical groups using an online panel and clinic recruitment. A scale-setting subsample was created reflecting demographics proportional to the 2000 U.S. census. Using item-response theory (graded response model), 11 item banks were calibrated on a sample of 21,133, measuring components of self-reported physical, mental, and social health, along with a 10-item Global Health Scale. Short forms from each bank were developed and compared with the overall bank and with other well-validated and widely accepted ("legacy") measures. All item banks demonstrated good reliability across most of the score distributions. Construct validity was supported by moderate to strong correlations with legacy measures. PROMIS item banks and their short forms provide evidence that they are reliable and precise measures of generic symptoms and functional reports comparable to legacy instruments. Further testing will continue to validate and test PROMIS items and banks in diverse clinical populations. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

                Author and article information

                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                04 May 2021
                : 14
                : 1215-1230
                [1 ]Pain Research Group, Pain Center, Odense University Hospital , Odense, Denmark
                [2 ]Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark , Odense, Denmark
                [3 ]Danish Regions , Copenhagen, Denmark
                [4 ]Interdisciplinary Pain Center, Sjællands University Hospital Køge , Køge, Denmark
                [5 ]Interdisciplinary Pain Center, University Hospital Aalborg , Aalborg, Denmark
                [6 ]Interdisciplinary Pain Center Allévia , Aarhus, Denmark
                [7 ]Pain Clinic, Regional Hospital Silkeborg , Silkeborg, Denmark
                [8 ]Interdisciplinary Pain Center, Lillebaelt Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark , Odense, Denmark
                [9 ]Pain Clinic, Friklinikken , Grindsted, Denmark
                [10 ]Interdisciplinary Pain Center, Holbæk Hospital , Holbæk, Denmark
                [11 ]Interdisciplinary Pain Center, Næstved Hospital , Næstved, Denmark
                [12 ]Interdisciplinary Pain Center, Gentofte Hospital , Gentofte, Denmark
                [13 ]Interdisciplinary Pain Center , Rigshospitalet, Denmark
                [14 ]The Private Pain Clinic , Herlev, Denmark
                [15 ]CFR Capio , Skørping, Denmark
                [16 ]Interdisciplinary Research Unit, Elective Surgery Center, Silkeborg Regional Hospital , Silkeborg, Denmark
                [17 ]Interacting Minds Centre, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University , Aarhus, Denmark
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Henrik Bjarke Vaegter Pain Research Group, Pain Center, Odense University Hospital , Heden 7-9, Indgang 200, Odense, DK-5000, DenmarkTel +45 65413869Fax +45 65415064 Email henrik.bjarke.vaegter@rsyd.dk
                © 2021 Vaegter et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 11, References: 34, Pages: 16
                Original Research

                Anesthesiology & Pain management

                questionnaires, registry, chronic pain, paindata


                Comment on this article