Westgate Philip M, Gomez-Pomar Enrique
Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.
Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.
Front Pediatr. 2017 Sep 20;5:204. doi: 10.3389/fped.2017.00204. eCollection 2017.
In the face of the current Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) epidemic, there is considerable variability in the assessment and management of infants with NAS. In this manuscript, we particularly focus on NAS assessment, with special attention given to the popular Finnegan Neonatal Abstinence Score (FNAS). A major instigator of the problem of variable practices is that multiple modified versions of the FNAS exist and continue to be proposed, including shortened versions. Furthermore, the validity of such assessment tools has been questioned, and as a result, the need for better tools has been suggested. The ultimate purpose of this manuscript, therefore, is to increase researchers' and clinicians' understanding on how to judge the usefulness of NAS assessment tools in order to guide future tool development and to reduce variable practices. In short, we suggest that judgment of NAS assessment tools should be made on a clinimetrics viewpoint as opposed to psychometrically. We provide examples, address multiple issues that must be considered, and discuss future tool development. Furthermore, we urge researchers and clinicians to come together, utilizing their knowledge and experience, to assess the utility and practicality of existing assessment tools and to determine if one or more new or modified tools are needed with the goal of increased agreement on the assessment of NAS in practice.
面对当前新生儿戒断综合征(NAS)的流行情况,对患有NAS的婴儿进行评估和管理存在很大差异。在本手稿中,我们特别关注NAS评估,尤其关注广为人知的芬尼根新生儿戒断评分(FNAS)。实践差异问题的一个主要诱因是存在多个FNAS的修订版本,并且仍在不断提出,包括缩短版。此外,此类评估工具的有效性受到质疑,因此有人建议需要更好的工具。因此,本手稿的最终目的是增强研究人员和临床医生对如何判断NAS评估工具实用性的理解,以指导未来工具的开发并减少实践差异。简而言之,我们建议应从临床计量学角度而非心理测量学角度对NAS评估工具进行评判。我们提供了示例,阐述了必须考虑的多个问题,并讨论了未来工具的开发。此外,我们敦促研究人员和临床医生携手合作,利用他们的知识和经验,评估现有评估工具的实用性和实用性,并确定是否需要一个或多个新的或修改后的工具,目标是在实践中对NAS评估达成更多共识。