Phantom pain: a sensitivity analysis

S Borsje, JC Bosmans, Cees van der Schans, JHB Geertzen, PU Dijkstra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyse how decisions to dichotomise the frequency and impediment of phantom pain into absent and present influence the outcome of studies by performing a sensitivity analysis on an existing database.

METHOD: Five hundred and thirty-six subjects were recruited from the database of an orthopaedic workshop and filled out a questionnaire in which the following items were assessed: demographics, side, date, level and reason of amputation, presence and frequency of phantom sensations, phantom pain and stump pain, and impediment due to phantom pain.

RESULTS: The prevalence of phantom pain ranged from 7-72% when different cut off points for the frequency of phantom pain were applied. The significance of the various risk factors for the prevalence of phantom pain changed when different cut off points were applied. Only stump pain and phantom sensations were significant risk factors for all cut off points. Risk factors for the impediment of phantom pain changed when different cut off points were applied and these risk factors were different from those for the prevalence of phantom pain.

CONCLUSION: The choice of cut off points influences the outcome of phantom pain studies considerably. This study provides some insight into the differences in prevalence and risk factors found in literature.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)905-910
JournalDisability and rehabilitation
Volume26
Issue number14-15
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 23 Oct 2004

Keywords

  • phantom pain

Cite this

Borsje, S., Bosmans, JC., van der Schans, C., Geertzen, JHB., & Dijkstra, PU. (2004). Phantom pain: a sensitivity analysis. Disability and rehabilitation, 26(14-15), 905-910. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280410001708922
Borsje, S ; Bosmans, JC ; van der Schans, Cees ; Geertzen, JHB ; Dijkstra, PU. / Phantom pain : a sensitivity analysis. In: Disability and rehabilitation. 2004 ; Vol. 26, No. 14-15. pp. 905-910.
@article{12c66de8d1c345a1aa011968e9b8cdb1,
title = "Phantom pain: a sensitivity analysis",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To analyse how decisions to dichotomise the frequency and impediment of phantom pain into absent and present influence the outcome of studies by performing a sensitivity analysis on an existing database.METHOD: Five hundred and thirty-six subjects were recruited from the database of an orthopaedic workshop and filled out a questionnaire in which the following items were assessed: demographics, side, date, level and reason of amputation, presence and frequency of phantom sensations, phantom pain and stump pain, and impediment due to phantom pain.RESULTS: The prevalence of phantom pain ranged from 7-72{\%} when different cut off points for the frequency of phantom pain were applied. The significance of the various risk factors for the prevalence of phantom pain changed when different cut off points were applied. Only stump pain and phantom sensations were significant risk factors for all cut off points. Risk factors for the impediment of phantom pain changed when different cut off points were applied and these risk factors were different from those for the prevalence of phantom pain.CONCLUSION: The choice of cut off points influences the outcome of phantom pain studies considerably. This study provides some insight into the differences in prevalence and risk factors found in literature.",
keywords = "phantom pain, fantoompijn",
author = "S Borsje and JC Bosmans and {van der Schans}, Cees and JHB Geertzen and PU Dijkstra",
year = "2004",
month = "10",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1080/09638280410001708922",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "905--910",
journal = "Disability and rehabilitation",
issn = "0963-8288",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "14-15",

}

Borsje, S, Bosmans, JC, van der Schans, C, Geertzen, JHB & Dijkstra, PU 2004, 'Phantom pain: a sensitivity analysis' Disability and rehabilitation, vol. 26, no. 14-15, pp. 905-910. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280410001708922

Phantom pain : a sensitivity analysis. / Borsje, S; Bosmans, JC; van der Schans, Cees; Geertzen, JHB; Dijkstra, PU.

In: Disability and rehabilitation, Vol. 26, No. 14-15, 23.10.2004, p. 905-910.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Phantom pain

T2 - a sensitivity analysis

AU - Borsje, S

AU - Bosmans, JC

AU - van der Schans, Cees

AU - Geertzen, JHB

AU - Dijkstra, PU

PY - 2004/10/23

Y1 - 2004/10/23

N2 - PURPOSE: To analyse how decisions to dichotomise the frequency and impediment of phantom pain into absent and present influence the outcome of studies by performing a sensitivity analysis on an existing database.METHOD: Five hundred and thirty-six subjects were recruited from the database of an orthopaedic workshop and filled out a questionnaire in which the following items were assessed: demographics, side, date, level and reason of amputation, presence and frequency of phantom sensations, phantom pain and stump pain, and impediment due to phantom pain.RESULTS: The prevalence of phantom pain ranged from 7-72% when different cut off points for the frequency of phantom pain were applied. The significance of the various risk factors for the prevalence of phantom pain changed when different cut off points were applied. Only stump pain and phantom sensations were significant risk factors for all cut off points. Risk factors for the impediment of phantom pain changed when different cut off points were applied and these risk factors were different from those for the prevalence of phantom pain.CONCLUSION: The choice of cut off points influences the outcome of phantom pain studies considerably. This study provides some insight into the differences in prevalence and risk factors found in literature.

AB - PURPOSE: To analyse how decisions to dichotomise the frequency and impediment of phantom pain into absent and present influence the outcome of studies by performing a sensitivity analysis on an existing database.METHOD: Five hundred and thirty-six subjects were recruited from the database of an orthopaedic workshop and filled out a questionnaire in which the following items were assessed: demographics, side, date, level and reason of amputation, presence and frequency of phantom sensations, phantom pain and stump pain, and impediment due to phantom pain.RESULTS: The prevalence of phantom pain ranged from 7-72% when different cut off points for the frequency of phantom pain were applied. The significance of the various risk factors for the prevalence of phantom pain changed when different cut off points were applied. Only stump pain and phantom sensations were significant risk factors for all cut off points. Risk factors for the impediment of phantom pain changed when different cut off points were applied and these risk factors were different from those for the prevalence of phantom pain.CONCLUSION: The choice of cut off points influences the outcome of phantom pain studies considerably. This study provides some insight into the differences in prevalence and risk factors found in literature.

KW - phantom pain

KW - fantoompijn

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/phantom-pain-sensitivity-analysis

U2 - 10.1080/09638280410001708922

DO - 10.1080/09638280410001708922

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 905

EP - 910

JO - Disability and rehabilitation

JF - Disability and rehabilitation

SN - 0963-8288

IS - 14-15

ER -