Figure 3
The difference in the clinical features in the CPSP, non-CPSP and no-pain groups. (A and C) A radar chart showing the difference between the subgroups of each pain-related factor containing neuropathic and nociceptive elements (indicating the proportion of the total score). (B) The bar graph shows the comparisons between the subgroups of each pain-related element (*P < 0.05, χ2 and Fisher's exact tests with a Bonferroni–Holm post hoc correction). (D) The bar graph shows the comparisons between the subgroups of each pain-related assessment (the Kruskal–Wallis test with a Bonferroni–Holm post hoc correction). The graphs show the means ± SDs. FMA, Fugl–Meyer assessment; NPSI, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory; PCS, Short-Form Pain Catastrophizing Scale; PDQ, Pain Detection Questionnaire; ROM, range of motion; TSK-11, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia-11.

The difference in the clinical features in the CPSP, non-CPSP and no-pain groups. (A and C) A radar chart showing the difference between the subgroups of each pain-related factor containing neuropathic and nociceptive elements (indicating the proportion of the total score). (B) The bar graph shows the comparisons between the subgroups of each pain-related element (*P < 0.05, χ2 and Fisher's exact tests with a Bonferroni–Holm post hoc correction). (D) The bar graph shows the comparisons between the subgroups of each pain-related assessment (the Kruskal–Wallis test with a Bonferroni–Holm post hoc correction). The graphs show the means ± SDs. FMA, Fugl–Meyer assessment; NPSI, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory; PCS, Short-Form Pain Catastrophizing Scale; PDQ, Pain Detection Questionnaire; ROM, range of motion; TSK-11, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia-11.

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close