Suppr超能文献

下背部相关腿痛患者中,神经病理性症状和体征的自我报告利兹评估与神经病理性疼痛4问题筛查工具之间的一致性和相关性。

Agreement and correlation between the self-report leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions neuropathic pain screening tools in subjects with low back-related leg pain.

作者信息

Walsh Jeremy, Rabey Martin I, Hall Toby M

机构信息

School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.

出版信息

J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2012 Mar-Apr;35(3):196-202. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2012.02.001. Epub 2012 Mar 6.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The self-report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) neuropathic pain screening tools have been shown to be reliable, valid, and able to differentiate neuropathic pain from inflammatory or mixed pain syndromes. However, no studies have compared these tools to determine whether their outcomes are similar. This study evaluated agreement and correlation between the S-LANSS and DN4 in the identification of neuropathic pain in subjects with low back-related leg pain.

METHODS

This observational study compared S-LANSS and DN4 scores in 45 patients with low back-related leg pain. The S-LANSS and DN4 cutoff scores of 12 and 4, respectively, were used to classify subjects as positive or negative for the presence of neuropathic pain for each screening tool. The κ statistic was used to determine whether there was agreement in classification of neuropathic pain between the 2 screening tools. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine correlation between scores of the 2 screening tools.

RESULTS

Neuropathic pain was identified in 15 subjects (33%) using the S-LANSS and in 19 subjects (42%) using the DN4. Agreement on neuropathic pain classification was fair, with a κ value of 0.34. There was moderate to good correlation (r = 0.62; P < .001) between scores obtained from the 2 tools.

CONCLUSIONS

The finding of fair agreement suggests that despite the moderate to good correlation between scores, the cutoff points for the classification of neuropathic pain of the 2 tools may not be congruent.

摘要

目的

自我报告的利兹神经病理性症状和体征评估量表(S-LANSS)以及神经病理性疼痛4问题量表(DN4)这两种神经病理性疼痛筛查工具已被证明是可靠、有效的,并且能够区分神经病理性疼痛与炎症性或混合性疼痛综合征。然而,尚无研究比较这两种工具以确定它们的结果是否相似。本研究评估了S-LANSS和DN4在识别下背部相关腿痛患者的神经病理性疼痛方面的一致性和相关性。

方法

这项观察性研究比较了45名下背部相关腿痛患者的S-LANSS和DN4评分。对于每种筛查工具,分别采用S-LANSS和DN4的临界值12分和4分,将受试者分类为神经病理性疼痛阳性或阴性。κ统计量用于确定两种筛查工具在神经病理性疼痛分类上是否一致。Pearson相关系数用于确定两种筛查工具评分之间的相关性。

结果

使用S-LANSS识别出15名受试者(33%)存在神经病理性疼痛,使用DN4识别出19名受试者(42%)存在神经病理性疼痛。神经病理性疼痛分类的一致性为中等程度相符,κ值为0.34。两种工具获得的评分之间存在中度至高度相关性(r = 0.62;P <.001)。

结论

中等程度相符的结果表明,尽管评分之间存在中度至高度相关性,但两种工具用于神经病理性疼痛分类的临界值可能不一致。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验