Smart Keith M, Curley Antoinette, Blake Catherine, Staines Anthony, Doody Catherine
UCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science, University College Dublin, Ireland.
J Man Manip Ther. 2010 Jun;18(2):102-10. doi: 10.1179/106698110X12640740712897.
Mechanisms-based classifications of pain have been advocated for their potential to aid understanding of clinical presentations of pain and improve clinical outcomes. However, the reliability of mechanisms-based classifications of pain and the clinical criteria upon which such classifications are based are not known. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the inter- and intra-examiner reliability of clinical judgments associated with: (i) mechanisms-based classifications of pain; and (ii) the identification and interpretation of individual symptoms and signs from a Delphi-derived expert consensus list of clinical criteria associated with mechanisms-based classifications of pain in patients with low back (±leg) pain disorders. The inter- and intra-examiner reliability of an examination protocol performed by two physiotherapists on two separate cohorts of 40 patients was assessed. Data were analysed using kappa and percentage of agreement values. Inter- and intra-examiner agreement associated with clinicians' mechanisms-based classifications of low back (±leg) pain was 'substantial' (kappa = 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.96; % agreement = 87.5) and 'almost perfect' (kappa = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92-1.00; % agreement = 92.5), respectively. Sixty-eight and 95% of items on the clinical criteria checklist demonstrated clinically acceptable (kappa ⩾ 0.61 or % agreement ⩾ 80%) inter- and intra-examiner reliability, respectively. The results of this study provide preliminary evidence supporting the reliability of clinical judgments associated with mechanisms-based classifications of pain in patients with low back (±leg) pain disorders. The reliability of mechanisms-based classifications of pain should be investigated using larger samples of patients and multiple independent examiners.
基于机制的疼痛分类因其有助于理解疼痛临床表现和改善临床结果的潜力而受到提倡。然而,基于机制的疼痛分类的可靠性以及此类分类所依据的临床标准尚不清楚。本研究的目的是评估与以下方面相关的临床判断在检查者之间和检查者内部的可靠性:(i)基于机制的疼痛分类;(ii)从德尔菲法得出的与下背部(±腿部)疼痛障碍患者基于机制的疼痛分类相关的临床标准专家共识列表中识别和解释个体症状和体征。评估了两名物理治疗师对两个分别由40名患者组成的队列进行的检查方案在检查者之间和检查者内部的可靠性。使用kappa值和一致性百分比值对数据进行分析。与临床医生基于机制的下背部(±腿部)疼痛分类相关的检查者之间和检查者内部的一致性分别为“实质性”(kappa = 0.77;95%置信区间(CI):0.57 - 0.96;一致性百分比 = 87.5)和“几乎完美”(kappa = 0.96;95%CI:0.92 - 1.00;一致性百分比 = 92.5)。临床标准清单上分别有68%和95%的项目在检查者之间和检查者内部表现出临床可接受的(kappa⩾0.61或一致性百分比⩾80%)可靠性。本研究结果提供了初步证据,支持与下背部(±腿部)疼痛障碍患者基于机制的疼痛分类相关的临床判断的可靠性。应使用更大样本的患者和多个独立检查者来研究基于机制的疼痛分类的可靠性。