Kane Robert L, Bershadsky Boris, Lin Wen-Chieh, Rockwood Todd, Wood Kirkham
Division of Health Services Research and Policy, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, University of Minnesota Clinical Outcomes Research Center, 420 Delaware Street SE (Mayo Mail Code 197), Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;55(2):105-10. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00429-2.
In an effort to develop a method for standardizing patients' reports of pain intensity, we tested seven different approaches to employing patients' ratings of four consistent types of pain as a means of correcting their reports (the average of the four standard pain measures, the average of the greater pains--finger in a door and tooth drilling, the average of the lesser pains--blister and leg cramp, the predicted back pain VAS from a regression of the standard pains, a conversion to the same scale based on population mean, the difference between individual mean and population mean of the four standard pain measures, and the difference between individual range and population range of the four standard pain measures). None of the adjustments proved to be a substantial improvement over the unstandardized approach. The best adjuster was the approach that used the average of the greater pain scores.
为了开发一种使患者疼痛强度报告标准化的方法，我们测试了七种不同的方法，即采用患者对四种一致类型疼痛的评分来校正他们的报告（四种标准疼痛测量的平均值、较剧烈疼痛——手指夹门和牙钻的平均值、较轻微疼痛——水泡和腿部抽筋的平均值、根据标准疼痛回归预测的背痛视觉模拟评分、基于总体均值转换到相同量表、四种标准疼痛测量的个体均值与总体均值之差以及四种标准疼痛测量的个体范围与总体范围之差）。事实证明，没有一种调整方法比未标准化的方法有实质性的改进。最佳调整方法是使用较剧烈疼痛评分平均值的方法。
