↓ Skip to main content

Validity of pain drawings for predicting psychological status outcome in patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy (Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy), December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Validity of pain drawings for predicting psychological status outcome in patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain
Published in
Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy (Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy), December 2013
DOI 10.1179/2042618613y.0000000046
Pubmed ID
Authors

J.H. Abbott, Megan Foster, Lucien Hamilton, Michael Ravenwood, Nicholas Tan

Abstract

To investigate the association between baseline pain drawings and future psychological status, and estimate the prognostic value of pain drawing assessment for predicting somatization, distress, and depression at one-year follow-up, in patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain (RCLBP). This was a multi-center prospective cohort study of 138 patients with RCLBP. Participating patients completed at baseline and one-year follow-up: a blank pain drawing; the Modified Somatic Perceptions Questionnaire; modified Zung Depression Scale; and Distress and Risk Assessment Method. Pain drawings were analyzed quantitatively using the Pain Sites Score (PSS) and Simple Body Region (SBR) method. The association between baseline pain drawing assessment and one-year psychological status was estimated using correlation and Relative Risk (RR) statistics. We obtained complete data from 81 patients (59%). Psychological status and pain drawings did not differ significantly between completers and non-completers. Pain drawing area at baseline was associated with depression and somatization at one-year follow-up (Spearman's Rho 0.25, P = 0.022; 0.31 P = 0.006, respectively). Stronger associations resulted from analyses using the PSS, compared with the SBR. Patients with abnormal PSS pain drawings at baseline had significantly greater RR of depression (RR 6.1, 95% CI 1.1, 33.5), somatization (RR 4.1, 95% CI 1.7, 9.9) and distress (RR 6.8, 95% CI 1.9, 25.3) at one-year follow-up. These results provide the first evidence that abnormal baseline pain drawings predict greater risk of abnormal psychological states or poor psychological outcome at one-year follow-up, in patients with RCLBP.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 18 26%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 June 2015.
All research outputs
#24,788,473
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy (Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy)
#550
of 698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,433
of 377,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy (Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy)
#76
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 377,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.