Smith Shannon M, Hunsinger Matthew, McKeown Andrew, Parkhurst Melissa, Allen Robert, Kopko Stephen, Lu Yun, Wilson Hilary D, Burke Laurie B, Desjardins Paul, McDermott Michael P, Rappaport Bob A, Turk Dennis C, Dworkin Robert H
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York.
School of Professional Psychology, Pacific University, Hillsboro, Oregon.
J Pain. 2015 Apr;16(4):299-305. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.004. Epub 2015 Jan 28.
Pain intensity assessments are used widely in human pain research, and their transparent reporting is crucial to interpreting study results. In this systematic review, we examined reporting of human pain intensity assessments and related elements (eg, administration frequency, time period assessed, type of pain) in all empirical pain studies with adult participants in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain) between January 2011 and July 2012. Of the 262 articles identified, close to one-quarter (24%) ambiguously reported the pain intensity assessment. Elements related to the pain intensity assessment were frequently not reported: 31% did not identify the time period participants were asked to rate, 43% failed to report the type of pain intensity rated, and 58% did not report the specific location or pain condition rated. No differences were observed between randomized clinical trials and experimental (eg, studies involving experimental manipulation without random group assignment and blinding) and observational studies in reporting quality. The ability to understand study results, and to compare results between studies, is compromised when pain intensity assessments are not fully reported. Recommendations are presented regarding key details for investigators to consider when conducting and reporting pain intensity assessments in human adults.
This systematic review demonstrates that publications of pain research often incompletely report pain intensity assessments and their details (eg, administration frequency, type of pain). Failure to fully report details of pain intensity assessments creates ambiguity in interpreting research results. Recommendations are proposed to increase transparent reporting.
疼痛强度评估在人类疼痛研究中被广泛使用，其透明报告对于解释研究结果至关重要。在本系统评价中，我们考察了2011年1月至2012年7月期间在3种主要疼痛期刊（即《欧洲疼痛杂志》《疼痛杂志》和《疼痛》）上发表的、涉及成年参与者的所有实证性疼痛研究中人类疼痛强度评估及其相关要素（如给药频率、评估时间段、疼痛类型）的报告情况。在识别出的262篇文章中，近四分之一（24%）对疼痛强度评估的报告含糊不清。与疼痛强度评估相关的要素常常未被报告：31%未明确参与者被要求评分的时间段，43%未报告所评定的疼痛强度类型，58%未报告所评定的具体部位或疼痛情况。在报告质量方面，随机临床试验与实验性研究（如涉及无随机分组和盲法的实验性操作的研究）及观察性研究之间未观察到差异。当疼痛强度评估未得到充分报告时，理解研究结果以及比较不同研究结果的能力会受到损害。针对研究人员在对成年人类进行疼痛强度评估并报告时应考虑的关键细节提出了建议。
本系统评价表明，疼痛研究的出版物常常未完整报告疼痛强度评估及其细节（如给药频率、疼痛类型）。未能充分报告疼痛强度评估的细节会在解释研究结果时造成歧义。建议提高报告的透明度。
