Abstract: . . .  quality of pain was fairly uniform in the CTA positive and CTA negative group, except for sharp pain, being more frequent among the CTA positive patients (III). Distinction could not be made from symptoms often regarded as characteristic for musculoskeletal chest pain (III). We found the expected differences concerning type and severity of AP in the two groups namely more non-cardiac chest pain and lower CCS class among the CTA positive patients, compared to more typical AP . . .
. . .  concern of recall bias. (128) About 74% of the CTA positive patients reported improvement of pain after treatment (IV) compared to 22% among the CTA negative ones. Thirteen percent of the CTA negative group reported worse chest pain after treatment compared to none in the CTA positive group (figure 7) (IV, table 4). These conflicting results with pain measurements, suggest that rating scales are not an appropriate tool to assess improvement in such a low . . .
. . .  pain after treatment compared to none in the CTA positive group (figure 7) (IV, table 4). These conflicting results with pain measurements, suggest that rating scales are not an appropriate tool to assess improvement in such a low level pain population, neither as a binary nor as a continuous variable.  . . .
. . .  scale we used the patients own perception of pain and general health. This approach has been criticized and avoided in many clinical studies in the past because of concern of recall bias. (128) About 74% of the CTA positive patients reported improvement of pain after treatment (IV) compared to 22% among the CTA negative ones. Thirteen percent of the CTA negative group reported worse chest pain after treatment compared to none in the CTA positive group (figure 7) . . .
. . .  (IV) compared to 22% among the CTA negative ones. Thirteen percent of the CTA negative group reported worse chest pain after treatment compared to none in the CTA positive group (figure 7) (IV, table 4). These conflicting results with pain measurements, suggest that rating scales are not an appropriate tool to assess improvement in such a low level pain population, neither as a binary nor as a continuous variable.  . . .
. . .  pain (103;104) may suffer from musculoskeletal chest pain. However, none of these applied validated palpatory examination procedures, which limit their clinical value. In the present work, we focused on a subgroup of stable AP population, namely patients with a musculoskeletal cause of chest pain in the shape of CTA. This diagnosis was given to 18% of the population with known or suspected AP referred for CAG at a University Hospital. Palpation  . . .
--3000,6,250,3196,64647