Objectives: The 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is often used in pain management. The aims of our study were to determine the cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, to measure the variability of the optimal cut-off points, and to determine the influence of patients’ catastrophizing and their sex on these cut-off points.Methods: 2854 patients were included. Pain was assessed by the NRS, functioning by the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and catastrophizing by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Cut-off point schemes were tested using ANOVAs with and without using the PSC scores or sex as co-variates and with the interaction between CP scheme and PCS score and sex, respectively. The variability of the optimal cut-off point schemes was quantified using bootstrapping procedure.Results and conclusion: The study showed that NRS scores ≤ 5 correspond to mild, scores of 6–7 to moderate and scores ≥8 to severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning. Bootstrapping analysis identified this optimal NRS cut-off point scheme in 90% of the bootstrapping samples. The interpretation of the NRS is independent of sex, but seems to depend on catastrophizing. In patients with high catastrophizing tendency, the optimal cut-off point scheme equals that for the total study sample, but in patients with a low catastrophizing tendency, NRS scores ≤ 3 correspond to mild, scores of 4–6 to moderate and scores ≥7 to severe pain in terms of interference with functioning. In these optimal cut-off schemes, NRS scores of 4 and 5 correspond to moderate interference with functioning for patients with low catastrophizing tendency and to mild interference for patients with high catastrophizing tendency. Theoretically one would therefore expect that among the patients with NRS scores 4 and 5 there would be a higher average PDI score for those with low catastrophizing than for those with high catastrophizing. However, we found the opposite. The fact that we did not find the same optimal CP scheme in the subgroups with lower and higher catastrophizing tendency may be due to chance variability.

This study compares the responsiveness of three instruments of functional status: two disease-specific questionnaires (Oswestry and Roland Disability Questionnaires), and a patient-specific method (severity of the main complaint). We compared changes over time of functional status instruments with pain rated on a visual analog scale. Two strategies for evaluating the responsiveness in terms of sensitivity to change and specificity to change were used: effect size statistics and receiver-operating characteristic method. We chose global perceived effect as external criterion. A cohort of 81 patients with non-specific low back pain for at least 6 weeks assessed these measures before and after 5 weeks of treatment. According to the external criterion 38 patients improved. The results of both strategies were the same. All instruments were able to discriminate between improvement and non-improvement. The effect size statistics of the instruments were higher in the improved group than in the non-improved group. For each instrument the receiver-operating characteristic curves showed some discriminative ability. The curves for the Roland Questionnaire and pain were closer to the upper left than the curves for the other instruments. The sensitivity to change of the rating of Oswestry Questionnaire was lower than that of the other instruments. The main complaint was not very specific to change. The two strategies for evaluating the responsiveness were very useful and appeared to complement each other.

Since pain-related fear may contribute to the development and maintenance of chronic low back pain (CLBP), an exposure in vivo treatment (EXP) was developed for CLBP patients. We examined the effectiveness as well as specific mediating mechanisms of EXP versus operant graded activity (GA) directly and 6 months post-treatment in a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. In total, 85 patients suffering from disabling non-specific CLBP reporting at least moderate pain-related fear were randomly allocated to EXP or GA. It was demonstrated that EXP, despite excelling in diminishing pain catastrophizing and perceived harmfulness of activities, was equally effective as GA in improving functional disability and main complaints, although the group difference almost reached statistical significance favouring EXP. Both treatment conditions did not differ in pain intensity and daily activity levels either. Nor was EXP superior to GA in the subgroup of highly fearful patients. Irrespective of treatment, approximately half the patients reported clinically relevant improvements in main complaints and functional disability, although for the latter outcome the group difference was almost significant favouring EXP. Furthermore, the effect of EXP relative to GA on functional disability and main complaints was mediated by decreases in catastrophizing and perceived harmfulness of activities. In sum, this study demonstrates that up to 6 months after treatment EXP is an effective treatment, but not more effective than GA, in moderately to highly fearful CLBP patients, although its superiority in altering pain catastrophizing and perceived harmfulness of activities is clearly established. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed.

Pain is the predominant symptom for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and osteoarthritis (OA) mandating the development of evidence-based recommendations for the health professional's approach to pain management. A multidisciplinary task force including professionals and patient representatives conducted a systematic literature review of systematic reviews to evaluate evidence regarding effects on pain of multiple treatment modalities. Overarching principles and recommendations regarding assessment and pain treatment were specified on the basis of reviewed evidence and expert opinion. From 2914 review studies initially identified, 186 met inclusion criteria. The task force emphasised the importance for the health professional to adopt a patient-centred framework within a biopsychosocial perspective, to have sufficient knowledge of IA and OA pathogenesis, and to be able to differentiate localised and generalised pain. Treatment is guided by scientific evidence and the assessment of patient needs, preferences and priorities; pain characteristics; previous and ongoing pain treatments; inflammation and joint damage; and psychological and other pain-related factors. Pain treatment options typically include education complemented by physical activity and exercise, orthotics, psychological and social interventions, sleep hygiene education, weight management, pharmacological and joint-specific treatment options, or interdisciplinary pain management. Effects on pain were most uniformly positive for physical activity and exercise interventions, and for psychological interventions. Effects on pain for educational interventions, orthotics, weight management and multidisciplinary treatment were shown for particular disease groups. Underpinned by available systematic reviews and meta-analyses, these recommendations enable health professionals to provide knowledgeable pain-management support for people with IA and OA.

No abstract