疼痛强度评估量表应用于老年腰痛患者的同时效度与偏好性

目的探讨疼痛强度评估量表在老年腰痛患者疼痛评估中的同时效度与选择量表时的偏好。方法由测评人员对30例有腰痛临床症状的老年患者进行疼痛强度评估量表测试,包括数字评定量表(NRS)、视觉模拟评分表(VAS)、词语描述量表(VDS)、修改版面部表情疼痛量表(FPS-R)和组合型疼痛评估表(MIX)。以NRS为校标工具,通过Spearman相关系数检验NRS与FPS-R、MIX、VAS和VDS之间的相关程度来确定FPS-R、MIX、VAS和VDS的同时效度。统计患者对5种评估量表的首选率。结果 FPS-R、MIX、VAS和VDS与NRS高度正相关(r=0.753～0.957,P<0.001)。首选疼痛强度评估量表依次为FPS-R、NRS、VDS、MIX、VAS。结论 FPS-R、MIX、VAS和VDS具有良好的同时效度,疼痛强度评估量表的同时效度适用于老年腰痛人群的评估。FPS-R是首选率最高的量表。     

5种疼痛强度评估量表应用于老年腰痛患者的重测信度

目的探讨5种疼痛强度评估量表在老年腰痛患者疼痛评估中的重测信度。方法对30例有腰痛症状的老年患者在24 h内用5种疼痛强度评估量表进行两次测试,包括视觉模拟评分(VAS)、数字评定量表(NRS)、词语描述量表(VDS)、修改版面部表情疼痛量表(FPS-R)和组合型疼痛评估表(MIX)。进行组内相关系数(ICC)分析。结果 5种量表的ICC为0.543~0.754,从高到低依次为NRS、FPS-R、MIX、VAS、VDS。结论 5种疼痛强度评估量表评估老年腰痛的重测信度均满意,建议优先选择NRS和FPS-R。     

The Numeric Rating Scale for Clinical Pain Measurement: A Ratio Measure?

? Abstract: The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS‐11) has been widely used clinically for the assessment of pain. Its use for clinical research is controversial. Reports differ as to whether or not the NRS‐11 should be treated as a ratio pain measurement tool. This study compared the NRS‐11 to a ratio measure for pain assessment: the visual analog scale (VAS). Simultaneous pain measurements using these 2 scales were compared in clinical situations commonly encountered in a tertiary community hospital. Whereas linear relationships were noted in laboring patients and in postoperative patients with thoracic or abdominal incisions during cough, no such correlations were noted for the same postoperative patients at rest or for postoperative orthopedic patients. The NRS‐11 should not be considered to be interchangeable with the VAS. Its use for clinical research should be limited to situations where it has specifically demonstrated linear properties. ?     

Validation of the Pain Resilience Scale in a Chronic Pain Sample

Psychosocial factors that protect against negative outcomes for individuals with chronic pain have received increased attention in recent years. Pain resilience, or the ability to maintain behavioral engagement and regulate emotions as well as cognitions despite prolonged or intense pain, is one such factor. A measure of pain-specific resilience, the Pain Resilience Scale, was previously identified as a better predictor of acute pain tolerance than general resilience. The present study sought to validate this measure in a chronic pain sample, while also furthering understanding of the role of pain resilience compared with other protective factors. Participants with chronic pain completed online questionnaires to assess factors related to positive pain outcomes, pain vulnerability, pain intensity, and quality of life. A confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the 2-factor structure of the Pain Resilience Scale previously observed among respondents without chronic pain, although one item from each subscale was dropped in the final version. For this chronic pain sample, structural equation modeling showed that pain resilience contributes unique variance to a model including pain acceptance and pain self-efficacy in predicting quality of life and pain intensity. Further, pain resilience was a better fit in this model than general resilience, strengthening the argument for assessing pain resilience over general resilience.

Transcultural adaptation and validation of Hindi version of Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

Abstract

Purpose: To transculturally adapt the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale for Hindi-speaking population and examine its psychometric properties in patients with low back pain.

Materials and methods: The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Hindi following international guidelines. Hindi version of the scale was completed by 120 patients with low back pain and 60 healthy controls. Patients with low back pain were also administered the Hindi-Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and Visual Analog Scale. Psychometric evaluation included test–retest reliability, convergent and discriminative validity. Exploratory factor analysis was carried out to determine the factor structure.

Results: The factorial analysis revealed a four-factor solution (bending/carrying, ambulation/reach, prolonged postures and rest). Convergent validity was confirmed by high correlation of Hindi Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale to the Hindi version of Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (r?=?0.77 and p?<?0.001) as well as Visual Analog Scale (r?=?0.682 and p?<?0.001) scores. Discriminative validity was established by significantly different scores for patients with low back pain and the healthy controls (35.36?±?18.6 vs. 9.13?±?6.08 and p?<?0.001). The translated version of the scale showed remarkable internal consistency (Cronbach α?=?0.98) and the intraclass correlation coefficient of test–retest reliability was excellent (ICC_2,1=0.96). MDC₉₅ and SEM scores obtained were 10.28 and 3.71, respectively.

Conclusion: The Hindi version of Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale has good test–retest reliability, discriminative and convergent validity and is appropriate for clinical and research use in Hindi-speaking low back pain patients.

• Implications for rehabilitation

• Linguistically and culturally adapted questionnaires help researchers make adequate inferences about instruments measuring health and quality of life.

• The translated version would serve as a valid research tool allowing comparability of data across cultures thus, providing opportunities for large multicenter, multicountry trials.

• A Hindi Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale version will help to improve the quality and efficacy of assessment of low back pain by developing in patients, a better understanding of the items which can be easily correlated with the activities of daily living.

     

Reliability and validity of the Faces Pain Scale with older adults

BACKGROUND: The Faces Pain Scale (FPS) is effective with older adults in clinical assessment of pain intensity. The 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) has universally adapted for assessment of pain intensity. The commonly used versions of the FPS have six, seven or nine faces. OBJECTIVES: We proposed an 11 face modified version of the McGrath nine face FPS to compare with the 0-10 NRS without the mathematical translation. The psychometric properties of the proposed version were also investigated in a sample of Korean older adults. DESIGN: This study employed methodological research design. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 31 older adults was recruited through local senior citizen centers to examine the construct validity and the test-retest reliability. For the concurrent validity testing, a sample of 85 older adults with chronic pain was recruited through a general hospital and an oriental medical hospital. METHODS: The construct validity was examined by determining if the subjects perceive the FPS as representing pain and they agree on the rank of each face. The test-retest reliability was examined at a 2-week interval. The concurrent validity was examined by using the NRS and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Subjects perceived the 11 FPS as a pain measure, and the subjects' agreements in the rank ordering of the faces were almost perfect (Kendall's W = .93, p < .001). Cohen's kappa of .61 (p < .001) for test-retest reliability was acceptable in the cognitively intact subjects. Concurrent validity measured by the correlation between the FPS and the NRS (r = .73, p < .001) and the VAS (r = .73, p < .001) was supported. CONCLUSIONS: These results supported the appropriateness of the 11 FPS for use with the older adults in clinical practice to measure pain intensity. Additionally, this study provided cross-cultural evidence to evaluate usefulness of the FPS.     

Validation of a Limitations in Daily Activities Scale for Chronic Pain

Limitations in physical function and participation are important domains of assessment in chronic pain. In 1995, the International Association for the Study of Pain distributed a self-report measure of functional limitations. Although the questionnaire has been used in research studies, it has never been subjected to a thorough investigation of its measurement properties. In this study, 941 patients with chronic pain completed the 16-item Limitations in Daily Activities Scale (LIDAS) at 2 pretreatment and 1 post-treatment assessment points. Individual item analysis favored a 13-item scale. This 13-item LIDAS had a confirmed 3-factor structure consisting of limitations in personal care, global participation, and specific tasks. Reliability analyses for the total scale (α?=?.90), as well as for each factor individually (αs?=?.82–.84), indicated good internal consistency, test–retest reliability (intraclass correlations?=?.65–.88 over varying time intervals), and responsiveness to change with treatment. LIDAS scores correlated as expected with measures of pain intensity, pain cognitions, and depression, as well as with other self-report and clinician-administered measures of functional performance. Using patient global ratings as anchors, a minimal clinically important difference of 5 points was established as a criterion for meaningful individual improvement after treatment. In conclusion, the LIDAS is a reliable, valid, and clinically relevant option for assessing limitations in physical function and participation in patients with chronic pain.

悬吊运动训练对慢性非特异性腰痛的疗效观察

目的观察悬吊运动训练技术治疗社区慢性非特异性腰痛的效果。方法 35例成人慢性非特异性腰痛患者分成治疗组(n=18)和对照组(n=17),分别采用电疗+悬吊运动训练和单纯电疗治疗4周。使用疼痛数字评分(NRS)、Oswestry腰痛功能障碍问卷,分别在治疗开始前、治疗4周后进行评估。结果治疗后与对照组比较,治疗组NRS、Oswestry腰痛功能障碍问卷评分改善(P<0.05)。结论悬吊运动训练可以有效减轻社区慢性非特异性腰痛患者的疼痛及功能障碍。     

Sensation and Distress of Pain Scales: reliability, validity, and sensitivity

Psychometric properties of the Sensation and Distress of Pain Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) are compared to dual numerical rating scales (NRS) with data from a randomized controlled trial of postoperative patients. On postoperative days 1 and 2, 15-minute test-retest reliability was .73 to .82 for the VAS and slightly lower for the NRS, r = .72 to .78, while convergent validity of the scales ranged from r = .90 to .92; construct validity of sensation and distress ranged from r = .72 to .85; and discriminant validity was lower, r = .65 to .78. Both instruments were significantly associated with pain reduction following treatment, p < .05 to .01. The VAS scores were significantly lower, p < .01 to .001, and more evenly distributed than NRS scores. It is recommended that the VAS be used in research to produce continuous scores that are more suited to parametric analysis.     

Psychometric Evaluation of the Nurses' Cancer Pain Management Competency Scale

BackgroundThere is lack of instruments for assessing nurses' comprehensive pain management competency.AimThis study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Nurses' Cancer Pain Management Competency Scale and to conduct a cursory survey of the pain management educational needs/resources of nurses caring for patients with cancer pain.MethodA convenience sample of 230 Korean nurses who met the eligibility criteria completed the researcher developed the Nurses' Cancer Pain Management Competency Scale and a pain management educational needs/resources survey. The Nurses' Cancer Pain Management Competency Scale was based on the pain management core competencies identified by Fishman et al (2013). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation.ResultsCronbach's alpha of the scale was 0.89. Nurse cancer pain management competency includes four factors, which accounted for 68.44% of the variance: the context of pain management, pain assessment and measurement, management of pain, and multidimensional nature of pain. Approximately 42% of nurses had no available protocols related to cancer pain management. Nurses preferred multi-component educational modalities, including simulation-based learning.ConclusionsFindings support internal consistency reliability and content and construct validity of the Nurses' Cancer Pain Management Competency Scale that can help examine pain management competency of nurses. Adopting an evidence-based clinical cancer pain management-related protocol and multi-component training programs are needed to achieve optimal cancer pain management competency in nurses.     

A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The quality of a disability scale should dictate when it is used. The purposes of this study were to examine the validity of a global rating of change as a reflection of meaningful change in patient status and to compare the measurement properties of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OSW) and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QUE). SUBJECTS: Sixty-seven patients with acute, work-related low back pain referred for physical therapy participated in the study. METHODS: The 2 scales were administered initially and after 4 weeks of physical therapy. The Physical Impairment Index, a measure of physical impairment due to low back pain, was measured initially and after 2 and 4 weeks. A global rating of change survey instrument was completed by each subject after 4 weeks. RESULTS: An interaction existed between patients defined as improved or stable based on the global rating using a 2-way analysis of variance for repeated measures on the impairment index. The modified OSW showed higher levels of test-retest reliability and responsiveness compared with the QUE. The minimum clinically important difference, defined as the amount of change that best distinguishes between patients who have improved and those remaining stable, was approximately 6 points for the modified OSW and approximately 15 points for the QUE. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: The construct validity of the global rating of change was supported by the stability of the Physical Impairment Index across the study period in patients defined as stable by the global rating and by the decrease in physical impairment across the study period in patients defined as improved by the global rating. The modified OSW demonstrated superior measurement properties compared with the QUE.     

The psychometric properties of an Arabic numeric pain rating scale for measuring osteoarthritis knee pain

Purpose: The aims of this study were to translate the numeric rating scale (NRS) into Arabic and to evaluate the test–retest reliability and convergent validity of an Arabic Numeric Pain Rating Scale (ANPRS) for measuring pain in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

Methods: The English version of the NRS was translated into Arabic as per the translation process guidelines for patient-rated outcome scales. One hundred twenty-one consecutive patients with OA of the knee who had experienced pain for more than 6 months were asked to report their pain levels on the ANPRS, visual analogue scale (VAS), and verbal rating scale (VRS). A second assessment was performed 48 h after the first to assess test–retest reliability. The test–retest reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC_2,1). The convergent validity was assessed using Spearman rank correlation coefficient. In addition, the minimum detectable change (MDC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were also assessed.

Results: The repeatability of ANPRS was good to excellent (ICC 0.89). The SEM and MDC were 0.71 and 1.96, respectively. Significant correlations were found with the VAS and VRS scores (p?<0.01).

Conclusions: The Arabic numeric pain rating scale is a valid and reliable scale for measuring pain levels in OA of the knee.

• Implications for Rehabilitation

• The Arabic Numeric Pain Rating Scale (ANPRS) is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring pain in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, with psychometric properties in agreement with other widely used scales.

• The ANPRS is well correlated with the VAS and NRS scores in patients with OA of the knee.

• The ANPRS appears to measure pain intensity similar to the VAS, NRS, and VRS and may provide additional advantages to Arab populations, as Arabic numbers are easily understood by this population.

     

Three new datasets supporting use of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11) for children’s self-reports of pain intensity

Despite wide usage of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for self-report of pain intensity in clinical practice with children and adolescents, validation data are lacking. We present here three datasets from studies in which the NRS was used together with another self-report scale. Study A compared post-operative pain ratings on the NRS with scores on the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) in 69 children age 7–17 years who had undergone a variety of surgical procedures. Study B compared post-operative pain ratings on the NRS with scores on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in 29 children age 9–17 years who had undergone pectus excavatum repair. Study C compared ratings of remembered immunization pain in 236 children who comprised an NRS group and a sex- and age-matched VAS group. Correlations of the NRS with the FPS-R and VAS were r = 0.87 and 0.89 in Studies A and B, respectively. In Study C, the distributions of scores on the NRS and VAS were very similar except that scores closest to the no pain anchor were more likely to be selected on the VAS than the NRS. The NRS can be considered functionally equivalent to the VAS and FPS-R except for very mild pain (<1/10). We conclude that use of the NRS is tentatively supported for clinical practice with children of 8 years and older, and we recommend further research on the lower age limit and on standardized age-appropriate anchors and instructions for this scale.     

Cross-validation of the Back Pain Classification Scale with chronic, intractable pain patients

The current study investigated the utility of the Back Pain Classification Scale with chronic, intractable low back pain and headache patients. Subjects consisted of 50 chronic low back pain and 50 chronic headache patients referred to a university based Pain Center for evaluation. Data indicated that subjects were a representative sample of severely intractable chronic pain patients typically referred for Pain Center evaluation and treatment. Each was administered the Back Pain Classification Scale as part of a thorough physical and psychological/behavioral evaluation. All subjects were classified by blind review of medical records into one of two categories: (1) presence of psychopathologically based pain complaint with little or no pathophysiological findings and (2) presence of pathophysiologically based pain complaints with little or no psychopathological findings. Subjects were also independently classified from blind review of their scores on the Back Pain Classification Scale into one of these two categories. Findings revealed that the Back Pain Classification Scale accurately predicted the actual classification of 80% of the low back pain patients (i.e., 30% above baseline prediction rate) and only 60% of the chronic headache patients (i.e., only equal to the baseline prediction rate). Furthermore, the scale was found to be most accurate in predicting low back pain patients with primary psychopathologically based pain. It was concluded that the Back Pain Classification Scale was an empirically valid instrument to use with chronic low back pain patients, but not with chronic headache patients. This lack of utility with chronic headache patients was also viewed as support for the construct validity of the scale. Wider use of the scale with chronic low back pain patients was suggested.     

Comparative Responsiveness of Verbal and Numerical Rating Scales to Measure Pain Intensity in Patients With Chronic Pain

Verbal rating scale (VRS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) are regularly used to assess and monitor pain in chronic pain patients. Although the NRS has been generally preferred, limited comparative responsiveness evidence was reported. This study compared the responsiveness of VRS and NRS measuring current pain and investigated the influence of different references (ie, worst, least, average, and current pain or their composite) on the NRSs' responsiveness. Two hundred fifty-four chronic pain patients attended a 10-day pain self-management program and were assessed with two 6-point VRSs (assessing current pain) and four 11-point NRSs (assessing worst, least, average, and current pain) at pre- and posttreatment. A patient-reported rating of pain improvement was used as the criterion for standardized response mean and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. Results showed that the VRSs and NRSs exhibited small responsiveness in all patients, but the magnitude of responsiveness became moderate to large in patients with improved pain. However, in patients with pain improvements, the NRS current pain item and composite score (made up of the 4 pain items) were found to have significantly larger responsiveness and greater discriminatory ability to detect the presence of improvement than other current pain VRSs and the NRSs assessing worst, least, and average pain. Potential implications for clinical practice are discussed.     

Measuring the quality of children's postoperative pain management: initial validation of the child/parent Total Quality Pain Management (TQPM) instruments

Quality improvement measurement instruments for pediatric postoperative pain management are virtually nonexistent. Without standardized instruments to measure pediatric pain management outcomes, practitioners are hampered in their efforts to improve the quality of pain management for children. In this study, instruments for children (8--12 years) and parents were developed and tested to measure the quality of children's postoperative pain management. The child (Child TQPM) and parent (Parent TQPM) Total Quality Pain Management instruments were tested with 50 parent/child dyads across two large treatment centers. The pain rating scale modified for these instruments demonstrated good criterion validity with the well established Varni/Thompson Pediatric Pain Questionnaire Visual Analogue Scale. Parent--child agreement was described for responses across instruments. Construct validity was examined through selected inter-item relationships. Psychometric analyses support the initial measurement properties of the pediatric TQPM instruments.     

Assessing Pain in Older People With Persistent Pain: The NRS Is Valid But Only Provides Part of the Picture

This study examined the assessment of pain intensity and pain distress with the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) in elderly patients (age >60 years) with persistent pain. A consecutive sample of 800 elderly patients were categorized by age into 3 groups: 61 to 70 years (n = 366), 71 to 80 years (n = 308), and 81 years and over (n = 126). Participants completed 3 Numerical Rating Scales assessing current pain intensity, and both the usual level of pain and average pain distress in the preceding week. The failure rate for scale completion was low for all scales for all age groups, but was significantly higher in the oldest group compared to the youngest group for the scales assessing current pain intensity and average pain distress in the preceding week. The NRS was shown to be a reliable and valid measure of pain intensity and pain distress in all these age groups. Distress related to pain appeared to be specific to the pain experience and was only weakly related to more generalized affective distress. These findings confirm that measures of pain intensity and pain distress, like the NRS, capture only part of the pain experience in older patients and should be supplemented by other measures in the assessment process.     

Psychometric properties of the Neck Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with mechanical neck pain

Cleland JA, Childs JD, Whitman JM. Psychometric properties of the Neck Disability Index and numeric pain rating scale in patients with mechanical neck pain.

Objective

To examine the psychometric properties including test-retest reliability, construct validity, and minimum levels of detectable and clinically important change for the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain in a cohort of patients with neck pain.

Design

Single-group repeated-measures design.

Setting

Outpatient physical therapy (PT) clinics.

Participants

Patients (N=137) presenting to PT with a primary report of neck pain.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures

All patients completed the NDI and the NRS at the baseline examination and at a follow-up. At the time of the follow-up, all patients also completed the global rating of change, which was used to dichotomize patients as improved or stable. Baseline and follow-up scores were used to determine the test-retest reliability, construct validity, and minimal levels of detectable and clinically important change for both the NDI and NRS.

Results

Test-retest reliability was calculated using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (NDI ICC=.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], .25-.67; NRS ICC=.76; 95% CI, .51-.87). The area under the curve was .83 (95% CI, .75-.90) for the NDI score and .85 (95% CI, .78-.93) for the NRS score for determining between stable and improved patients. Thresholds for the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the NDI were 19-percentage points and 1.3 for the NRS.

Conclusions

Both the NDI and NRS exhibit fair to moderate test-retest reliability in patients with mechanical neck pain. Both instruments also showed adequate responsiveness in this patient population. However, the MCID required to be certain that the change in scores has surpassed a level that could be contributed to measurement error for the NDI was twice that which has previously been reported. Therefore the ongoing analyses of the properties of the NDI in a patient population with neck pain are warranted.     

Use of the Faces Pain Scale by left and right hemispheric stroke patients

No pain scale is available for stroke patients due to the presence of language or cognitive disorders. However, the Faces Pain Scale (FPS), which was initially developed for children, has been used with success in adults with cognitive impairments. The aim of this study is to test whether the FPS could be used in left or right hemispheric stroke patients (LHSP, RHSP). One hundred twenty-seven stoke patients and 21 controls were recruited in 2 rehabilitation units. Construct validity of FPS was assessed by rating and ranking facial expressions. FPS was correlated to a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and to a Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) for the assessment of shoulder pain. Reliability was determined by test-retest procedures. Performances of RHSP in the ranking and rating procedures were very poor compared to LHSP and to controls. However, in the assessment of patients' shoulder pain, FPS scores were highly correlated with VAS and VRS in both stroke groups (r=0.65-0.82, p<10(-3)). FPS was more reliable in LHSP than in RHSP. It was preferred to VAS and VRS in LHSP, while in RHSP VAS was the preferred scale. The present study provides preliminary support for the validity and the reliability of FPS in LHSP. However, we do not recommend its sole use in stroke patients. Further studies are needed to determine whether FPS can be used in stroke patients for assessing changes in severity of pain over time.