↓ Skip to main content

Measuring Pain Intensity in Patients with Neck Pain: Does It Matter How You Do It?

Overview of attention for article published in Pain Practice, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measuring Pain Intensity in Patients with Neck Pain: Does It Matter How You Do It?
Published in
Pain Practice, January 2014
DOI 10.1111/papr.12169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven J. Kamper, Sanneke J.M. Grootjans, Zoe A. Michaleff, Christopher G. Maher, James H. McAuley, Michele Sterling

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate whether variations in the way that pain intensity is measured in patients with neck pain influences the magnitude of pain ratings. The study uses data from 3 longitudinal studies (n = 361 at baseline) on people with neck pain due to whiplash injuries. Pain measures included verbal rating scales, numerical rating scales and a visual analog scale. Different measures asked patient to rate current pain, average pain over 24 hours, over 1 week, or over 4 weeks. Scores were converted to a 0-100 scale and tracked over time, correlations between measures were calculated. Mixed models regression was used to explore the factors which influenced the differences between scores on the measures. Scores on the different measures were significantly different from each other in each dataset (P < 0.02). The effect of recall period was significant in all datasets and the effect of number of response options was significant in 2 of 3 datasets. Pain intensity ratings appear to be sensitive to method of measurement. It is likely the length of recall time (eg, pain today vs. average pain over 4 weeks) has a significant influence on pain ratings. The influence of number of response options is less certain. Systematic reviewers should not uncritically rescale and pool absolute pain scores from instruments with varying scale descriptors or recall periods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 25 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 16%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 29 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2014.
All research outputs
#5,090,370
of 24,542,484 outputs
Outputs from Pain Practice
#282
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,618
of 315,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pain Practice
#9
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,542,484 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.