Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37544394›Full record

ArticleThe journal of pain2024

Comparable Minimally Important Differences and Responsiveness of Brief Pain Inventory and PEG Pain Scales across 6 Trials.

David E Reed, Timothy E Stump, Patrick O Monahan, Kurt Kroenke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of pain, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Mindfulness practice time and quality in veterans with chronic pain.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  19. Chronic low back pain causal risk factors identified by Mendelian randomization: a cross-sectional cohort analysis.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2025
    Observational
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

David E ReedHealth Services Research & Development, Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, VA Puget Sound Health Care, Seattle, Washington; Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Timothy E StumpDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Indiana University Fairbanks School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Patrick O MonahanDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Indiana University Fairbanks School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Kurt KroenkeDepartment of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana; Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana.

Funding

Stepped Care for Depression and Musculoskeletal PainR01MH071268 · NIMH · INDIANA UNIV-PURDUE UNIV AT INDIANAPOLIS · PI KROENKE, KURT · 2004 to 2007
$2.7M
TeleCare Management of Pain and Depression in CancerR01CA115369 · NCI · INDIANA UNIV-PURDUE UNIV AT INDIANAPOLIS · PI KROENKE, KURT · 2005 to 2009
$2.1M
Care Management for the Effective Use of Opioids (CAMEO)I01HX000495 · VA · RLR VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI BAIR, MATTHEW JOHN · 2011 to 2013
–
Stroke Self-Management: Effect on Function and Stroke Quality of LifeI01HX000587 · VA · RLR VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI DAMUSH, TERESA M. · 2015 to 2015
–
Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE) TrialI01HX000671 · VA · RLR VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI KREBS, ERIN ELIZABETH · 2013 to 2013
–
HSRD VA I01 HX000495HSRD VA I01 HX000587HSRD VA I01 HX000671HSRD VA IIR 07-119NCI NIH HHS R01 CA115369NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH071268
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 3-item pain intensity (P), interference with the enjoyment of life (E), and interference with general activity (G), or PEG, has become one of the most widely used measures of pain severity and interference. The minimally important differences (MID) and responsiveness of the PEG are essential metrics for solidifying its role in research and clinical care. The current study aims to establish the MID and responsiveness of the PEG by synthesizing data from 1,710 participants across 6 controlled trials. MIDs were estimated using absolute score changes among individuals reporting their pain was "a little better" on a retrospective global change anchor as well as distribution-based estimates using standard deviation thresholds and 1 and 2 standard errors of measurement. Responsiveness was assessed using standardized response means, area under the curve, and treatment effect sizes. MID estimates for the PEG ranged from 0.60 to 1.1 when using 0.35 SD, and 0.78 to 1.22 using 1 standard error of measurement. MID estimates using the global anchor had somewhat more variability but most estimates ranged from 1.0 to 1.75. Responsiveness effect sizes were generally large (>.80) for standardized response means and moderate (>.50) for treatment effect. Similarly, the most area under the curve values demonstrated an acceptable level of scale responsiveness (≥.70). Importantly, MID estimates and responsiveness of the PEG and BPI scales were largely comparable when aggregating data across trials. Our synthesis indicates that 1 point is a reasonable MID estimate on these 0- to 10-point pain scales, with 2 points being an upper bound. PERSPECTIVE: This article synthesizes data from 6 clinical trials to establish the minimally important difference (MID) and responsiveness of the 3-item PEG pain scale. The PEG demonstrated good responsiveness, and 1 to 2 points proved to be reasonable estimates for the lower and upper bounds of the MID.

Indexed as

PainQuality of LifeHumansPain MeasurementRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesBrief pain inventoryMeasurementPainPEGPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID37544394
PMCPMC10859144

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.