↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Readers on

mendeley
66 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.
Article details
Title
Is There Significant Correlation between Self‐Reported Low Back Pain Visual Analogue Scores and Low Back Pain Scores Determined by Pressure Pain Induction Matching?
Published in
Pain Practice, October 2012
DOI 10.1111/papr.12001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine whether self-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) low back pain (LBP) scores are valid against matched psychophysically induced pressure pain scores. Two hundred thirty-six chronic LBP patients (some with neck pain) reported their LBP and neck pain scores on a VAS immediately before psychophysical pressure pain induction used to determine pain threshold (PTHRE), pain tolerance (PTOL), and a psychophysical pressure pain score which matched (PMAT) their current LBP. Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients were calculated between reported VAS neck scores, reported VAS LBP scores, and the psychophysically determined LBP PMAT scores. The PMAT scores were calculated utilizing PTOL only and both PTOL and PTHRE. There was a significant correlation between the LBP PMAT scores and the reported LBP VAS scores for both types of psychophysical LBP PMAT score calculations; however, there were insignificant correlations between the LBP PMAT scores and reported neck VAS scores. Chronic LBP patients can match their self-reported VAS LBP scores to psychophysically determined LBP PMAT scores. As such, self-reported VAS chronic LBP scores appear to be valid against one type of psychophysical measurement.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 39 59%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Mathematics 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 39 59%