Englbrecht Matthias, Tarner Ingo H, van der Heijde Désirée M, Manger Bernhard, Bombardier Claire, Müller-Ladner Ulf
Department of Internal Medicine 3 and Institute for Clinical Immunology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Ulmenweg 18, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
J Rheumatol Suppl. 2012 Sep;90:3-10. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.120335.
To systematically review the available literature on measuring pain and the efficacy of pain treatment in inflammatory arthritis (IA), as an evidence base for generating clinical practice recommendations.
A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism 2008/2009 meeting abstracts, searching for studies evaluating clinimetric properties of pain measurement tools in IA (convergent validity, internal consistency, retest reliability, responsiveness, feasibility, and standardization). Studies that presented information on these properties were reviewed and their data were integrated into the pool of results available for pain measures in IA.
In total, 51 articles were included in the review. Validated information on pain was available for tools covering different facets such as overall pain, anatomically specific pain, or a mixture of both. Data from these studies showed that single pain-related items such as the visual analog scale (VAS), numeric rating scale (NRS), or verbal rating scale (VRS) provide sufficient clinimetric information. Similar results were obtained for the pain subscales of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS/AIMS2) and the bodily pain subscale of the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Survey 36. Most clinimetric coefficients showed acceptable results with respect to validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change, while the degree of standardization and feasibility mostly filled at least 2 of 3 predefined criteria.
A variety of pain measures are available to cover different aspects of pain such as intensity, frequency, or location. Single-item tools such as VAS, NRS, or VRS can be recommended to measure overall pain in clinical practice. If more specific issues need to be addressed, more sophisticated tools should be taken into account.
系统回顾关于炎症性关节炎(IA)疼痛测量及疼痛治疗疗效的现有文献,作为生成临床实践建议的证据基础。
在Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆以及美国风湿病学会/欧洲抗风湿病联盟2008/2009年会议摘要中进行系统文献检索,寻找评估IA中疼痛测量工具的临床测量特性(收敛效度、内部一致性、重测信度、反应度、可行性和标准化)的研究。对呈现这些特性信息的研究进行综述,并将其数据整合到IA疼痛测量可用的结果池中。
该综述共纳入51篇文章。涵盖不同方面(如总体疼痛、解剖学特定疼痛或两者混合)的工具均有关于疼痛的有效信息。这些研究的数据表明,单一的疼痛相关条目,如视觉模拟量表(VAS)、数字评定量表(NRS)或语言评定量表(VRS),可提供足够的临床测量信息。关节炎影响测量量表(AIMS/AIMS2)的疼痛子量表和医学结局研究简明健康调查36项的身体疼痛子量表也得到了类似结果。大多数临床测量系数在效度、信度和对变化的敏感性方面显示出可接受的结果,而标准化程度和可行性大多至少满足3项预定义标准中的2项。
有多种疼痛测量方法可涵盖疼痛的不同方面,如强度、频率或部位。在临床实践中,可推荐使用VAS、NRS或VRS等单项工具来测量总体疼痛。如果需要解决更具体的问题,则应考虑使用更复杂的工具。