Versteegen G J, van Es F D, Kingma J, Meijler W J, ten Duis H J
Pain Expertise Centre, University Hospital Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Injury. 2001 Apr;32(3):185-93. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(00)00180-7.
Research prior to 1995 showed a diversity of either inclusion or exclusion criteria (or both) for diagnosing whiplash injury. As a consequence, the Quebec Task Force (QTF) developed expert-based criteria, which may be considered as a the 'new' gold standard. Here, we examined the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria used in research populations from the major 82 research studies performed during the period 1980-1998, comparing their similarities and dissimilarities to the QTF standard. None of the articles satisfied the QTF definitions completely, either before or after their introduction in 1995. Nevertheless, the QTF still seems to have had some impact on either the published inclusion or exclusion criteria. We observed that both sets of criteria showed a qualitative shift following the QTF publication in 1995. For the inclusion criteria, we found both a statistically significant increase in use of the QTF definition (acceleration-deceleration mechanism, rear-end collision, motor vehicle collision or other mishaps) and in the criterion 'neck pain'. We also observed some smaller changes in both inclusion and exclusion criteria but none of these was significant statistically.
1995年之前的研究表明，在诊断挥鞭伤时，纳入标准或排除标准（或两者）存在多样性。因此，魁北克工作小组（QTF）制定了基于专家的标准，这可被视为“新的”金标准。在此，我们研究了1980年至1998年期间进行的82项主要研究中研究人群所使用的纳入标准和排除标准，比较它们与QTF标准的异同。在1995年引入QTF标准之前或之后，没有一篇文章完全符合QTF的定义。尽管如此，QTF似乎仍然对已发表的纳入或排除标准产生了一些影响。我们观察到，在1995年QTF标准发布之后，这两组标准都出现了质的转变。对于纳入标准，我们发现使用QTF定义（加速-减速机制、追尾碰撞、机动车碰撞或其他事故）以及“颈部疼痛”标准的情况在统计学上均有显著增加。我们还观察到纳入标准和排除标准都有一些较小的变化，但这些变化在统计学上均不显著。
