<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>SCID &#8211; Science</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scienmag.com/tag/scid/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scienmag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 02:08:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3</generator>

 
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">73899611</site>	<item>
		<title>Research report: Defining clinically meaningful pain reduction after spinal injections using an 11-point numerical rating scale and patient-reported relative reduction of pain</title>
		<link>https://scienmag.com/research-report-defining-clinically-meaningful-pain-reduction-after-spinal-injections-using-an-11-point-numerical-rating-scale-and-patient-reported-relative-reduction-of-pain/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 02:08:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Science News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[11-point numerical pain rating scale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinically]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinically important difference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinically meaningful pain improvement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defining]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evaluation of recovery after spinal injections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global perceived effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global perceived effect scale in pain assessment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MCID]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical rating scale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pain management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pain measurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pain reduction in spinal procedures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pain score analysis in spine treatments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patient-centered outcome measures in pain management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patient-reported outcomes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patient-reported pain relief measurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quantitative pain improvement benchmarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relative and absolute pain score reductions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retrospective spinal intervention study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retrospective study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCID]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spinal injection pain reduction thresholds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spinal injections]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://scienmag.com/?p=349284</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A retrospective study of 1,828 spinal injection patients has established specific pain score and patient-reported thresholds for distinguishing substantial from minimal clinically meaningful improvement.]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A new retrospective study from a spinal intervention center has now defined specific numerical thresholds that distinguish a substantial improvement from a minimal one, using both standard pain scores and patients&#x27; own impressions of relief. The research team analyzed data from 1,828 patients treated at their center who underwent spinal injections and completed a follow-up telephone interview two weeks later in 2017. From these scores, the researchers calculated three measures: the absolute reduction in pain score, the relative reduction as a percentage of the starting score, and a patient-reported relative reduction of pain, in which patients themselves estimated how much their pain had eased.</p>
<p>Patients also rated their overall recovery on a five-point global perceived effect scale, ranging from completely recovered to worsened. By comparing pain changes against these global ratings, the team established what a typical improvement looked like for each level of perceived benefit. Patients who said they were much improved reported an average absolute drop of 4.5 points on the pain scale, a relative reduction of about 65 percent, and a patient-reported relative reduction of roughly 68 percent.</p>
<p>Those who said they were only slightly improved reported much smaller changes: an average drop of 2.4 points, a relative reduction of about 37 percent, and a patient-reported reduction of about 36 percent. Receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis then identified cutoff values that best predicted two clinically important outcomes. A substantial clinically important difference, corresponding to patients who were completely recovered or much improved, was predicted by an absolute pain score reduction of at least 3 points, a relative reduction of at least 50 percent, or a patient-reported relative reduction of at least 50 percent.</p>
<p>For a minimal clinically important difference, which included patients who were at least slightly improved, the thresholds were lower: an absolute reduction of at least 1 point, a relative reduction of at least 10 percent, or a patient-reported relative reduction of at least 20 percent. The findings give clinicians and researchers a practical framework for interpreting pain outcomes after spinal injections. The authors note that the thresholds were derived from a single center&#x27;s patient population with two-week follow-up, so the values reflect short-term outcomes in that setting.</p>
<p><strong>Subject of Research:</strong> Clinically meaningful pain improvement thresholds after spinal injections</p>
<p><strong>Article Title:</strong> Defining clinically meaningful pain reduction after spinal injections using an 11-point numerical rating scale and patient-reported relative reduction of pain</p>
<p><strong>Article References:</strong> Do, Y., Son, W., Kim, Y., Chee, C. G., Kang, Y., Lee, E., Kim, Y. J., &amp; Lee, J. W. (2026). Defining clinically meaningful pain reduction after spinal injections using an 11-point numerical rating scale and patient-reported relative reduction of pain. <em>PLOS One, 21</em>(10), e0361475. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361475" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361475</a></p>
<p><strong>Image Credits:</strong> AI Generated</p>
<p><strong>DOI:</strong> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361475" rel="noopener noreferrer">10.1371/journal.pone.0361475</a></p>
<p><strong>Keywords:</strong> spinal injections, pain measurement, numerical rating scale, clinically important difference, MCID, SCID, global perceived effect, patient-reported outcomes, retrospective study, pain management, Defining, clinically</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">349284</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
