Schoth Daniel Eric, Blankenburg Markus, Wager Julia, Broadbent Philippa, Zhang Jin, Zernikow Boris, Liossi Christina
School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Faculty of Health, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 7;9(10):e031861. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031861.
This protocol describes the objective and methods of a systematic review of the association between quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures and pain intensity or disability in paediatric chronic pain (PCP). The review will also assess whether the relationship strength is moderated by variables related to the QST method and pain condition; the use of QST in PCP (modalities, outcome measures and anatomical test sites as well as differentiating between pain mechanisms (eg, neuropathic vs nociceptive) and in selecting analgesics); the reliability of QST across the paediatric age range; the ability of QST to differentiate patients with chronic pain from healthy controls; and differences between anatomical test sites.
Medline, PsycINFO, CINHAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library and OpenGrey will be searched. English language studies will be eligible if they recruit a sample aged 6-24 (inclusive) with chronic pain, including primary and secondary pain; apply at least one of the following QST modalities: chemical, electrical, mechanical (subgroups include pressure, punctate/brush and vibratory) or thermal stimulus to measure perception of noxious or innocuous stimuli applied to skin, muscle or joint; use a testing protocol to control for stimulus properties: modality, anatomical site, intensity, duration and sequence. Following title and abstract screening, the full texts of relevant records will be independently assessed by two reviewers. For eligible studies, one reviewer will extract study characteristics and data, and another will check for accuracy. Both will undertake independent quality assessments using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. A qualitative synthesis will be presented with discussion centred around different QST modalities. Where eligible data permit, meta-analyses will be performed separately for different QST modalities using comprehensive meta-analysis.
Review findings will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. The study raises no ethical issues.
CRD42019134069.
本方案描述了一项系统评价的目的和方法,该评价旨在研究定量感觉测试(QST)指标与儿童慢性疼痛(PCP)的疼痛强度或残疾之间的关联。该评价还将评估关系强度是否受到与QST方法和疼痛状况相关变量的调节;QST在PCP中的应用(方式、结局指标、解剖测试部位,以及区分疼痛机制(如神经性疼痛与伤害性疼痛)和选择镇痛药方面);QST在儿童年龄范围内的可靠性;QST区分慢性疼痛患者与健康对照的能力;以及解剖测试部位之间的差异。
将检索Medline、PsycINFO、CINHAL、科学网、Scopus、Cochrane图书馆和OpenGrey。纳入年龄在6 - 24岁(含)的慢性疼痛患者样本(包括原发性和继发性疼痛)的英文研究将符合要求;应用以下至少一种QST方式:化学、电、机械(亚组包括压力、点状/刷状和振动)或热刺激,以测量施加于皮肤、肌肉或关节的有害或无害刺激的感知;使用测试方案来控制刺激特性:方式、解剖部位、强度、持续时间和顺序。在标题和摘要筛选之后,两名评审员将独立评估相关记录的全文。对于符合要求的研究,一名评审员将提取研究特征和数据,另一名评审员将检查其准确性。两人都将使用横断面研究评估工具进行独立的质量评估。将进行定性综合分析,并围绕不同的QST方式展开讨论。在有合格数据的情况下,将使用综合荟萃分析针对不同的QST方式分别进行荟萃分析。
评价结果将在同行评审期刊上发表,并在会议上展示。本研究不存在伦理问题。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42019134069。