Crellin Dianne, Harrison Denise, Santamaria Nick, Babl Franz E
Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
J Pain Res. 2021 Mar 31;14:881-892. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S267839. eCollection 2021.
The purpose of this study was to compare the psychometric data and feasibility and clinical utility of the Face Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability scale (FLACC), the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS) and the Visual Analogue Scale for observers (VASobs) used to assess procedural pain in infants and young children.
Twenty-six clinicians assessed videorecorded segments of 100 infants and young children who underwent a painful and/or distressing procedure in the emergency department using the FLACC scale, the MBPS and the VASobs pain and VASobs distress.
VASobs pain scores were lowest across all procedures and phases of procedures (p < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability was lowest for VASobs pain scores (ICC 0.55). Sensitivity and specificity were highest for FLACC scores (94.9% and 72.5%, respectively) at the lowest cut-off score (pain score two). Observers changed their MBPS scores more often than they changed FLACC or VASobs scores, but FLACC scores were more often incomplete. Reviewers did not consider any scale of use for procedural pain measurement.
The reliability and sensitivity of the FLACC and MBPS were supported by study data but concerns about the capacity of these scales to distinguish between pain- and non-pain-related distress were raised. The VASobs cannot be recommended. Despite its limitations, the FLACC scale may be better suited than other scales for procedural pain measurement.
本研究旨在比较面部、腿部、活动、哭闹及可安慰性量表(FLACC)、改良行为疼痛量表(MBPS)和观察者视觉模拟量表(VASobs)用于评估婴幼儿程序性疼痛时的心理测量数据、可行性及临床实用性。
26名临床医生使用FLACC量表、MBPS和VASobs疼痛量表及VASobs痛苦量表,对100名在急诊科接受疼痛性和/或痛苦性操作的婴幼儿的视频片段进行评估。
在所有操作及操作阶段,VASobs疼痛评分均最低(p < 0.001)。VASobs疼痛评分的评分者间信度最低(组内相关系数ICC为0.55)。在最低临界值(疼痛评分为2)时,FLACC评分的敏感性和特异性最高(分别为94.9%和72.5%)。观察者改变其MBPS评分的频率高于改变FLACC或VASobs评分的频率,但FLACC评分更常不完整。评审者未考虑将任何量表用于程序性疼痛测量。
研究数据支持了FLACC和MBPS的信度和敏感性,但也引发了对这些量表区分疼痛相关和非疼痛相关痛苦能力的担忧。不推荐使用VASobs。尽管存在局限性,但FLACC量表可能比其他量表更适合用于程序性疼痛测量。