ArticlePain reports2025
Cognitive considerations for adults with sickle cell disease completing the brief pain inventory.
Article in Pain reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deciphering Pain Experience in Adult Patients With Sickle Cell Disease: A Network Analysis of Pain-Related Factors in a Single French Sickle Cell Centre.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Accurate assessment of pain severity is important for caring for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). The Brief Pain Inventory was developed to address limitations of previous pain-rating metrics and is available in a short form (BPI-SF). However, the BPI-SF is a self-report scale dependent on patient comprehension and interpretation of items. Objective: To examine patterns in how patients completed the BPI-SF and determine whether incorrectly completing the BPI-SF was related to cognitive functioning or education. Methods: A secondary analysis was completed using data from a study examining brain aging and cognitive impairment in SCD. T-tests were performed to examine whether neurocognitive function (immediate and delayed memory, visuospatial skills, attention, and language), word reading, and years of education differed based on correct BPI-SF completion. Results: The sample (n = 71) was 43.7% male, 98.6% African American or mixed race. Of that, 53.5% had sickle cell anemia, and the mean years of education was 13.6. Overall, 21.1% of participants (n = 15) incorrectly completed the BPI-SF pain severity items, and 57.7% completed the body map item incorrectly. Those who completed the severity items incorrectly had statistically significant differences in education. Group differences in neurocognitive function were no longer significant after familywise error rates were controlled for. Literacy was not associated with error rates. Conclusion: Education level may influence patients' ability to correctly complete the BPI-SF. Findings suggest that careful consideration is warranted for use of the BPI in patients with SCD. Recommended revisions to the BPI include simplifying the language, shortening sentence length, and clearly specifying the timeframes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.