Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 29;4(3):63. doi: 10.3390/healthcare4030063

Table 2.

Recommendations for core outcome sets for daily record keeping in chronic pain and back pain.

Name of Initiative/Authors
  • (a)

    Condition

  • (b)

    Intervention

  • (c)

    Scope of application

  • (d)

    Location

 Core Outcome Set
-Domains-		 Core Outcome Set
-Measurement Instruments-		 Stakeholders Additional Comments
German Pain Questionnaire (DSF)
Casser et al. 2012 [42]
  • (a)

    Chronic pain

  • (b)

    Specialized pain management,

  • (c)

    Daily practice

  • (d)

    Germany

 several domains consisting of:
(1) Patient’s demographic data of patient
(2) Biographic data
(3) Description of pain
  • -

    Pain drawing and verbal description

  • -

    Pain duration, frequency, course

  • -

    Qualitative pain description

  • -

    Pain intensity

  • -

    Pain related disability

  • -

    Causal- and control attribution

(4) Psychological wellbeing
  • -

    General wellbeing

  • -

    Screening of anxiety, depression, and stress

(5) Comorbidity
(6) History of medical pretreatment
  • -

    Physicians and interventions

  • -

    medication

 (1) self-report items
(2) self-report items
(3) self-report items, adaptation of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Numerical Rating Scale for pain intensity (NRS,), Pain perception scale (SES), Chronic pain grade questionnaire (CPG)
(4) Marburg Questionnaire of habitual wellbeing (MFHW), Depression-Anxiety-Stress-Scale (DASS)
(5) self-report items
(6) self-report items		 Panel consisted of physicians specialized in pain medicine, psychotherapists, and researcher experienced in public health Several updates
Completed validation of the questionnaire
Implementation in Germany via an electronical platform
Benchmarking and observational studies by the German Pain Questionnaire supported
Questionnaire supports diagnostic and therapeutic process
Treatment Outcomes in Pain Survey (TOPS)
Rogers et al. 2000 [43]
Rogers et al. 2000 [44]
  • (a)

    Chronic pain

  • (b)

    Interdisciplinary pain management

  • (c)

    Daily clinical care

  • (d)

    International

 14 outcome domains
(1) Pain symptom
(2) Perceived family/social disability
(3) Objective family/social disability
(4) Work limitations
(5) Objective work disability
(6) Lower body functional limitations
(7) Upper body functional limitations
(8) Fear avoidance
(9) Passive coping
(10) Life control
(11) Solicitous responses
(12) Patient satisfaction with care
(13) Patient satisfaction with outcome
(14) Total pain experience		 A 120-item questionnaire constructed according to the identified domains for administration
For follow-up were 61 items were provided		 Not applicable The tool was statistically derived from Short Form 36 (SF-36,), Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ and ), Brief pain Inventory (BPI) accomplished by several items to role-functioning, coping and pain (MOS)
Treatment Outcomes in Pain Survey short version (S-TOPS)
Haroutiunian et al. 2012 [45]
  • (a)

    chronic pain

  • (b)

    interdisciplinary pain management

  • (c)

    daily clinical care/individual patient monitoring

  • (d)

    international

 7 outcome domains *
(1) physical function lower body
(2) physical function upper body
(3) pain symptom
(4) role-emotional disability
(5) family and social disability
(6) patient satisfaction with outcomes
(7) patient satisfaction with care
(for * please refer to additional comments)		 Reanalyzes from original TOPS via factor analyzes
Reducing the health related quality scale by replacing the original SF 36 by the shorter SF 12		 Panel consisted of 11 clinicians (medical n = 4, physical therapy n = 3, behavioral medicine n = 2, pharmacotherapy n = 2) experienced in pain medicine
Patients were asked about the acceptable length of the questionnaire		 A multi-methodic approach has been conducted including judgement of experienced clinicians, defined criteria of psychometric property, inclusion of IMMPACT recommended domains (4/6), factor analyzes, and patients were asked about the acceptable amount of items for individual patient
Aim of the tool is monitoring in multidisciplinary chronic pain treatment
* To complete the recommended set of scales Haroutiunian et al. [34] suggested including two more scales performance/work disability scale and sleep scale
Patient Centered Outcome Questionnaire (PCOQ)
Robinson et al. 2005 [48]
  • (a)

    Chronic pain

  • (b)

    No specific

  • (c)

    No specific

  • (d)

    International

 4 outcome domains Considering usual level, desired level and level of success for:
(1) Pain
(2) Fatigue
(3) Emotional distress
(4) Interference with daily activities		 Single item assessment of
(1) NRS pain (0–10)
(2) NRS fatigue (0–10)
(3) NRS emotional distress (0–10)
(4) NRS interference with daily activities (0–10)
For three levels:
- usual level
- desired level
- level of success		 Not reported The identification of the domains and development of the scales was not clearly described
Patient expectation were assessed for low back pain and fibromyalgia [50]
Patient reported outcome criterion for operationalizing success in multi-modal pain therapy
Donath et al. 2015 [49]
  • (a)

    Chronic pain

  • (b)

    Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy

  • (c)

    Daily practice

  • (d)

    Germany

 5 outcome domains
(1) Pain severity
(2) Disability due to pain
(3) Depressiveness
(4) Physical health related quality of life
(5) Mental health related quality of life		 (1) Average pain severity (NRS 0–10)
(2) Pain disability Index (PDI)
(3) German version of the CESD
(4) S-36,Short Form 26 (SF36), physical composite score
(5) S-36,Short Form 26 (SF36), mental composite score		 Not applicable The tool was statistically derived from scales and items of the German Pain Questionnaire