Fanciullo Gilbert J, Hanscom Brett, Weinstein James N, Chawarski Marek C, Jamison Robert N, Baird John C
Department of Anesthesiology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire 03756, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Oct 1;28(19):2276-82. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000084880.33281.EB.
A k-means cluster analysis of patients with spinal and radicular pain based on the SF-36 Health Survey scales.
The aim was to determine whether spine patients fall into clusters according to self-reported health status as measured by the SF-36 and to determine if clustering is similar across four common diagnostic categories: herniated disc, spinal stenosis, spondylosis, and chronic pain syndrome.
Cognitive-behavioral classifications of chronic pain patients have previously identified three patient groups described as Dysfunctional, Interpersonally Distressed, and Minimizers/Adaptive Copers. The purpose of these classifications is to facilitate and direct treatment based not only on biomedical diagnosis but also on emotional, social, and behavioral diagnoses. This type of analysis has not been done on the quality-of-life scores of patients with specific spinal diagnoses.
Health status data were reviewed from the initial visits of 15,748 spine patients in the National Spine Network database. Based on the eight scales of the SF-36, k-means cluster analysis divided the National Spine Network population into distinct clusters of similar patients. Clustering was performed separately for each clinical diagnosis group.
In all four diagnostic categories, cluster analysis classified patients into three groups. Group 1 had fairly high (relative to the entire sample) scores on all scales and was labeled "Highly Functional." Group 2 had low measures on physical variables but comparatively high scores on the mental scales. These were labeled "Emotional Adapters." Group 3 had low scores on all scales. These patients were labeled "Dysfunctional." Although patients in each diagnostic category fell into one of the three groups, the proportion of patients within each group was quite different among chronic pain patients as compared to the other three diagnostic groups. For example, 29% of herniated disc patients were in the Highly Functional group, whereas only 14% of patients in chronic pain were categorized as Highly Functional. Thirty-three percent of spondylosis patients were classified as Dysfunctional compared with 51% of chronic pain patients.
Patients with spinal pain fall into three groups according to their profile of scores on the SF-36 Health Survey. It is proposed that such empirical groupings can guide decision-making in selecting the most appropriate therapies.
基于SF-36健康调查量表对脊柱和神经根性疼痛患者进行k均值聚类分析。
旨在确定脊柱疾病患者是否根据SF-36所测量的自我报告健康状况分为不同类别,并确定在四种常见诊断类别(椎间盘突出、椎管狭窄、脊柱关节病和慢性疼痛综合征)中聚类情况是否相似。
慢性疼痛患者的认知行为分类先前已确定了三个患者组,分别描述为功能失调型、人际困扰型和最小化者/适应性应对者。这些分类的目的不仅是基于生物医学诊断,还基于情感、社会和行为诊断来促进和指导治疗。这种类型的分析尚未针对特定脊柱诊断患者的生活质量评分进行。
回顾了国家脊柱网络数据库中15748例脊柱疾病患者初诊时的健康状况数据。基于SF-36的八个量表,k均值聚类分析将国家脊柱网络人群分为不同的相似患者类别。对每个临床诊断组分别进行聚类。
在所有四个诊断类别中,聚类分析将患者分为三组。第1组在所有量表上得分都相当高(相对于整个样本),被标记为“功能高度健全型”。第2组身体变量测量值低,但心理量表得分相对较高。这些被标记为“情感适应型”。第3组在所有量表上得分都低。这些患者被标记为“功能失调型”。尽管每个诊断类别的患者都属于这三组之一,但与其他三个诊断组相比,慢性疼痛患者中每组患者的比例差异很大。例如,29%的椎间盘突出患者属于功能高度健全型组,而只有14%的慢性疼痛患者被归类为功能高度健全型。33%的脊柱关节病患者被归类为功能失调型,而慢性疼痛患者中这一比例为51%。
脊柱疼痛患者根据其在SF-36健康调查中的得分情况分为三组。建议这种基于经验的分组可指导选择最合适治疗方法的决策制定。