The Development of a Somatic Amplification Rating Scale for Low-back Pain

Korbon, Gregg A.; DeGood, Douglas E.; Schroeder, Mark E.; Schwartz, David P.; Shutty, Michael S.

doi:10.1097/00007632-198710000-00014

Cited by 18 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only two studies [64,65] were found that could be construed to address the relationship among secondary gain, somatization, and chronic pain. In the first study [65], 250 CPPs were administered the SCL-90.…”

Section: Somatization Secondary Gain and Painmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because workers' compensation patients are often alleged to have secondary gains [56•], this study appears to support a relationship among secondary gain, somatization, and chronic pain. Similarly, the second study [64] also used workers' compensation CPPs, but here the Somatic Amplification Rating Scale (SARS) was used. The SARS is designed to quantify nonorganic physical findings that indicate either conversion problems or malingering.…”

Section: Somatization Secondary Gain and Painmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Somatization, secondary gain, and chronic pain: Is there a relationship?

Fishbain

1998

Current Review of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Somatization Secondary Gain and Painmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Somatization Secondary Gain and Painmentioning

confidence: 99%

Somatization, secondary gain, and chronic pain: Is there a relationship?

Fishbain

1998

Current Review of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some of the above studies addressed a number of operational definitions of secondary gain and malingering. As such, some of these studies 8,16,23,24,26,27 were used more than once. These studies are highlighted with an asterisk in the tables.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the AHCPR categorizations are objective in nature, requiring no interpretation, the senior author was the only researcher to identify the type of study each study represented according to Scale A (Table 1) and to identify the strength and consistence of the evidence represented by each group of studies according to Scale B (Table 1). Table 3 presents the 8 studies, 9,16,[23][24][25]27,28,31 3 of which 15,23,27 were used more than once for a total of 11 reports on this topic area. All 8 studies in this group represented type III evidence (Table 3).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 Finally, some other researchers have also equated WS with "somatic amplification." 16 Unfortunately, some of the above words such as "magnified" and "out of proportion" have led some authors and clinicians 17,18 to revert to the original interpretation of WS: malingering or pain of psychologic origin. For example, in a recent review 19 on detecting sincerity of effort, WS are listed as one of the "widely" used methods to determine sincerity of effort.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is There a Relationship Between Nonorganic Physical Findings (Waddell Signs) and Secondary Gain/Malingering?

Fishbain

Cutler

Rosomoff

et al. 2004

The Clinical Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a structured evidence based review of all available studies addressing the concept of nonorganic findings (Waddell signs) and their potential relationship to secondary gain and malingering. The objective of this review is to determine what evidence, if any, exists for a relationship between Waddell signs and secondary gain and malingering. Waddell signs are a group of 8 physical findings divided into 5 categories, the presence of which has been alleged at times to indicate the presence of secondary gain and malingering. A computer and manual literature search produced 16 studies relating to Waddell signs and secondary gain or malingering. These references were reviewed in detail, sorted, and placed into tabular form according to topic areas, which historically have been linked with the alleged possibility of secondary gain and malingering: 1) Waddell sign correlation with worker compensation and medicolegal status; 2) Waddell sign improvement with treatment; 3) Waddell sign correlation with Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory validity scores; and 4) Waddell sign correlation with physician dishonesty perception. Each report in each topic area was categorized for scientific quality according to guidelines developed by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. The strength and consistency of this evidence in each subject area was then also categorized according to Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. Conclusions of this review were based on these results. There was inconsistent evidence that Waddell signs were not associated with worker's compensation and medicolegal status; there was consistent evidence that Waddell signs improved with treatment; there was consistent evidence that Waddell signs were not associated with invalid paper-pencil test; and there was inconsistent evidence that Waddell signs were not associated with physician perception of effort exaggeration. Overall, 75% of these reports reported no association between Waddell signs and the 4 possible methods of identifying patients with secondary gain and/or malingering. Based on the above results, it was concluded that there was little evidence for the claims of an association between Waddell signs and secondary gain and malingering. The preponderance of the evidence points to the opposite: no association.

show abstract