ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2025
Phantom Limb Pain Assessment Tools: A Literature Review Exploring Strengths and Limitations.
Review in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effective Interventions in Restoring Mobility and Relieving Pain After Lower Limb Amputation.Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2026Article
- Treating Lower Phantom Limb Pain in the Postoperative Acute Care Setting Through a Virtual Reality-Based Graded Motor Imagery Program: A Case Series.Journal of medical extended reality · 2025Article
- Development and Content Validation of the Questionnaire for Postamputation Pain (Q-PAP): An Expert Delphi Study.Advances in rehabilitation science and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To identify and categorize the pain instruments used to evaluate phantom limb pain (PLP), phantom limb sensations (PLSs), and residual limb pain (RLP) stratified by frequency of use, instrument completion time, and inclusion of descriptive terms to distinguish between the 3 phenomena. Data Sources: MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar from 1986 to 2024. Study Selection: Cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies investigating the prevalence of PLP in adults (18y or older) with surgical and traumatic upper or lower limb amputation. Data Extraction: Studies were identified and their methods were evaluated for mention of instruments used to assess for PLP. Tools were then evaluated for frequency of usage, completion time, differentiation of pain and sensations after limb amputation, and qualitative assessment using descriptor words associated with PLP and PLSs. Data Synthesis: The review included 44 studies and identified 25 tools (5 unidimensional and 20 multidimensional). Unidimensional pain scales, particularly the Numeric Rating Scale, were the most frequently used. Of the multidimensional instruments identified, 9 of them were specific to PLP, and 6 distinguished between PLP, PLS, and RLP. Only one multidimensional instrument that was specific to PLP used descriptor words to differentiate between PLP and PLS. No tool was assessed for all 3 conditions and used descriptor words to distinguish between PLP and PLSs. Conclusions: Based on this systematic review, no PLP-specific instrument is suitable for standardizing the diagnosis of PLP in its current form. Further research is needed to establish a standardized tool that can reliably distinguish between PLP, PLS, and RLP while incorporating qualitative assessments to ensure accurate diagnosis.
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.