Suppr超能文献

避免两难困境:在慢性疼痛患者群体中验证疼痛检测量表(PainDETECT)

Avoiding Catch-22: validating the PainDETECT in a in a population of patients with chronic pain.

作者信息

Timmerman Hans, Wolff André P, Bronkhorst Ewald M, Wilder-Smith Oliver H G, Schenkels Marcel J, van Dasselaar Nick T, Huygen Frank J P M, Steegers Monique A H, Vissers Kris C P

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud university medical center, Huispost 549, PO Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Center, University of Groningen, University medical center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

出版信息

BMC Neurol. 2018 Jun 29;18(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s12883-018-1094-4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain is defined as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system and is a major therapeutic challenge. Several screening tools have been developed to help physicians detect patients with neuropathic pain. These have typically been validated in populations pre-stratified for neuropathic pain, leading to a so called "Catch-22 situation:" "a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule". The validity of screening tools needs to be proven in patients with pain who were not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome: neuropathic pain or non-neuropathic pain. This study aims to assess the validity of the Dutch PainDETECT (PainDETECT) in a large population of patients with chronic pain.

METHODS

A cross-sectional multicentre design was used to assess PainDETECT validity. Included where patients with low back pain radiating into the leg(s), patients with neck-shoulder-arm pain and patients with pain due to a suspected peripheral nerve damage. Patients' pain was classified as having a neuropathic pain component (yes/no) by two experienced physicians ("gold standard"). Physician opinion based on the Grading System was a secondary comparison.

RESULTS

In total, 291 patients were included. Primary analysis was done on patients where both physicians agreed upon the pain classification (n = 228). Compared to the physician's classification, PainDETECT had a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 55%, versus the Grading System it achieved 74 and 46%.

CONCLUSION

Despite its internal consistency and test-retest reliability the PainDETECT is not an effective screening tool for a neuropathic pain component in a population of patients with chronic pain because of its moderate sensitivity and low specificity. Moreover, the indiscriminate use of the PainDETECT as a surrogate for clinical assessment should be avoided in daily clinical practice as well as in (clinical-) research. Catch-22 situations in the validation of screening tools can be prevented by not pre-stratifying the patients on basis of the target outcome before inclusion in a validation study for screening instruments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered prospectively in the Dutch National Trial Register: NTR 3030 .

摘要

背景

神经性疼痛被定义为由躯体感觉神经系统的损伤或疾病引起的疼痛,是一个重大的治疗挑战。已经开发了几种筛查工具来帮助医生检测患有神经性疼痛的患者。这些工具通常在预先分层为神经性疼痛的人群中进行了验证,导致了一种所谓的“第22条军规情况”:“一种有问题的情况,其唯一的解决方案被问题本身固有的情况或规则所否定”。筛查工具的有效性需要在未根据目标结果(神经性疼痛或非神经性疼痛)预先分层的疼痛患者中得到证明。本研究旨在评估荷兰疼痛检测量表(PainDETECT)在大量慢性疼痛患者中的有效性。

方法

采用横断面多中心设计来评估PainDETECT的有效性。纳入的患者包括放射至腿部的腰痛患者、颈肩臂痛患者以及疑似周围神经损伤引起疼痛的患者。由两名经验丰富的医生(“金标准”)将患者的疼痛分类为具有神经性疼痛成分(是/否)。基于分级系统的医生意见作为次要比较。

结果

总共纳入了291名患者。对两名医生在疼痛分类上达成一致的患者(n = 228)进行了初步分析。与医生的分类相比,PainDETECT的敏感性为80%,特异性为55%,与分级系统相比分别为74%和46%。

结论

尽管PainDETECT具有内部一致性和重测信度,但由于其敏感性中等且特异性较低,它并不是慢性疼痛患者群体中神经性疼痛成分的有效筛查工具。此外,在日常临床实践以及(临床 -)研究中,应避免不加区分地将PainDETECT用作临床评估的替代方法。在筛查工具验证中,通过在纳入筛查工具验证研究之前不根据目标结果对患者进行预先分层,可以避免“第22条军规情况”。

试验注册

该方案已在荷兰国家试验注册中心进行前瞻性注册:NTR 3030 。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3279/6026336/6ec45b2970ae/12883_2018_1094_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验