Defining chronic pain in epidemiological studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ólöf Anna Steingrímsdóttir*, Tormod Landmark, Gary J. Macfarlane, Christopher Sivert Nielsen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The objective was to document the operational definitions applied in epidemiological studies of chronic pain and to examine whether pain definitions and other methodological factors are systematically related to prevalence estimates. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO were searched for original research reports with study samples of at least 1000 individuals, excluding studies of less than 5 out of 15 selected body regions and studies solely concerned with specific pain conditions. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were applied with random effects models; covariates were geography, sampling year, survey method, sampling frame, participation rate, percentage women of all participants, pain duration, and pain location. Of 6791 hits, 86 studies were included in the syntheses. The phrasing, content, and combinations of the chronic pain definition criteria were highly inconsistent, with virtually no 2 studies from independent research groups using the exact same criteria. Prevalence estimates ranged from 8.7% to 64.4%, with a pooled mean of 31%. Huge heterogeneity was shown in all forest plots. Prevalence estimates were significantly related to survey method (β = -10.8 [95% confidence interval: -17.2 to -4.4]), but it only counted for a small fraction of the between-studies variation in the estimates. There were also interaction effect of survey method by sex (female-male prevalence ratio [95% confidence interval]: questionnaire = 1.20 [1.16 to 1.25], and interview = 1.38 [1.29 to 1.47]). The other covariates investigated were not significantly related to the prevalence estimates. Researchers and clinicians should be aware of the probability that interview survey method of collecting data may give lower chronic pain reporting than questionnaire survey method and that this effect may be stronger in men than women.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2092-2107
Number of pages16
JournalPain
Volume158
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2017

Fingerprint

Chronic Pain
Meta-Analysis
Epidemiologic Studies
Pain
Confidence Intervals
Interviews
Body Regions
Geography
Surveys and Questionnaires
MEDLINE
Research Personnel
Research

Keywords

  • Chronic pain
  • Definition
  • Epidemiology
  • Geography
  • Methodology
  • Prevalence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Defining chronic pain in epidemiological studies : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Steingrímsdóttir, Ólöf Anna; Landmark, Tormod; Macfarlane, Gary J.; Nielsen, Christopher Sivert.

In: Pain, Vol. 158, No. 11, 01.11.2017, p. 2092-2107.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Steingrímsdóttir, Ólöf Anna ; Landmark, Tormod ; Macfarlane, Gary J. ; Nielsen, Christopher Sivert. / Defining chronic pain in epidemiological studies : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Pain. 2017 ; Vol. 158, No. 11. pp. 2092-2107.
@article{789a1194f5f44d2f929d76d240ef7e29,
title = "Defining chronic pain in epidemiological studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "The objective was to document the operational definitions applied in epidemiological studies of chronic pain and to examine whether pain definitions and other methodological factors are systematically related to prevalence estimates. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO were searched for original research reports with study samples of at least 1000 individuals, excluding studies of less than 5 out of 15 selected body regions and studies solely concerned with specific pain conditions. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were applied with random effects models; covariates were geography, sampling year, survey method, sampling frame, participation rate, percentage women of all participants, pain duration, and pain location. Of 6791 hits, 86 studies were included in the syntheses. The phrasing, content, and combinations of the chronic pain definition criteria were highly inconsistent, with virtually no 2 studies from independent research groups using the exact same criteria. Prevalence estimates ranged from 8.7{\%} to 64.4{\%}, with a pooled mean of 31{\%}. Huge heterogeneity was shown in all forest plots. Prevalence estimates were significantly related to survey method (β = -10.8 [95{\%} confidence interval: -17.2 to -4.4]), but it only counted for a small fraction of the between-studies variation in the estimates. There were also interaction effect of survey method by sex (female-male prevalence ratio [95{\%} confidence interval]: questionnaire = 1.20 [1.16 to 1.25], and interview = 1.38 [1.29 to 1.47]). The other covariates investigated were not significantly related to the prevalence estimates. Researchers and clinicians should be aware of the probability that interview survey method of collecting data may give lower chronic pain reporting than questionnaire survey method and that this effect may be stronger in men than women.",
keywords = "Chronic pain, Definition, Epidemiology, Geography, Methodology, Prevalence",
author = "Steingr{\'i}msd{\'o}ttir, {{\'O}l{\"o}f Anna} and Tormod Landmark and Macfarlane, {Gary J.} and Nielsen, {Christopher Sivert}",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001009",
language = "English",
volume = "158",
pages = "2092--2107",
journal = "Pain",
issn = "0304-3959",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Defining chronic pain in epidemiological studies

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Steingrímsdóttir, Ólöf Anna

AU - Landmark, Tormod

AU - Macfarlane, Gary J.

AU - Nielsen, Christopher Sivert

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - The objective was to document the operational definitions applied in epidemiological studies of chronic pain and to examine whether pain definitions and other methodological factors are systematically related to prevalence estimates. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO were searched for original research reports with study samples of at least 1000 individuals, excluding studies of less than 5 out of 15 selected body regions and studies solely concerned with specific pain conditions. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were applied with random effects models; covariates were geography, sampling year, survey method, sampling frame, participation rate, percentage women of all participants, pain duration, and pain location. Of 6791 hits, 86 studies were included in the syntheses. The phrasing, content, and combinations of the chronic pain definition criteria were highly inconsistent, with virtually no 2 studies from independent research groups using the exact same criteria. Prevalence estimates ranged from 8.7% to 64.4%, with a pooled mean of 31%. Huge heterogeneity was shown in all forest plots. Prevalence estimates were significantly related to survey method (β = -10.8 [95% confidence interval: -17.2 to -4.4]), but it only counted for a small fraction of the between-studies variation in the estimates. There were also interaction effect of survey method by sex (female-male prevalence ratio [95% confidence interval]: questionnaire = 1.20 [1.16 to 1.25], and interview = 1.38 [1.29 to 1.47]). The other covariates investigated were not significantly related to the prevalence estimates. Researchers and clinicians should be aware of the probability that interview survey method of collecting data may give lower chronic pain reporting than questionnaire survey method and that this effect may be stronger in men than women.

AB - The objective was to document the operational definitions applied in epidemiological studies of chronic pain and to examine whether pain definitions and other methodological factors are systematically related to prevalence estimates. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO were searched for original research reports with study samples of at least 1000 individuals, excluding studies of less than 5 out of 15 selected body regions and studies solely concerned with specific pain conditions. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were applied with random effects models; covariates were geography, sampling year, survey method, sampling frame, participation rate, percentage women of all participants, pain duration, and pain location. Of 6791 hits, 86 studies were included in the syntheses. The phrasing, content, and combinations of the chronic pain definition criteria were highly inconsistent, with virtually no 2 studies from independent research groups using the exact same criteria. Prevalence estimates ranged from 8.7% to 64.4%, with a pooled mean of 31%. Huge heterogeneity was shown in all forest plots. Prevalence estimates were significantly related to survey method (β = -10.8 [95% confidence interval: -17.2 to -4.4]), but it only counted for a small fraction of the between-studies variation in the estimates. There were also interaction effect of survey method by sex (female-male prevalence ratio [95% confidence interval]: questionnaire = 1.20 [1.16 to 1.25], and interview = 1.38 [1.29 to 1.47]). The other covariates investigated were not significantly related to the prevalence estimates. Researchers and clinicians should be aware of the probability that interview survey method of collecting data may give lower chronic pain reporting than questionnaire survey method and that this effect may be stronger in men than women.

KW - Chronic pain

KW - Definition

KW - Epidemiology

KW - Geography

KW - Methodology

KW - Prevalence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040779854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001009

DO - 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001009

M3 - Review article

VL - 158

SP - 2092

EP - 2107

JO - Pain

JF - Pain

SN - 0304-3959

IS - 11

ER -