Georgopoulos V, Smith S, McWilliams D F, Steultjens M P M, Williams A, Price A, Valdes A M, Vincent T L, Watt F E, Walsh D A
Academic Rheumatology, Pain Centre Versus Arthritis and NIHR Nottingham BRC, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, UK.
Centre for Living, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2023 Jan;31(1):83-95. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2022.08.011. Epub 2022 Sep 8.
In order to facilitate data pooling between studies, we explored harmonisation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in people with knee pain due to osteoarthritis or knee trauma, using the Patient Acceptable Symptom State scores (PASS) as a criterion.
We undertook a systematic literature review (SLR) of PASS scores, and performed individual participant data (IPD) analysis of score distributions from concurrently completed PROM pairs. Numerical rating scales (NRS), visual analogue scales, KOOS and WOMAC pain questionnaires were standardised to 0 to 100 (worst) scales. Meta-regression explored associations of PASS. Bland Altman plots compared PROM scores within individuals using IPD from WebEx, KICK, MenTOR and NEKO studies.
SLR identified 18 studies reporting PASS in people with knee pain. Pooled standardised PASS was 27 (95% CI: 21 to 35; n = 6,339). PASS was statistically similar for each standardised PROM. Lower PASS was associated with lower baseline pain (β = 0.49, P = 0.01) and longer time from treatment initiation (Q = 6.35, P = 0.04). PASS scores were lowest in ligament rupture (12, 95% CI: 11 to 13), but similar between knee osteoarthritis (31, 95% CI: 26 to 36) and meniscal tear (27, 95% CI: 20 to 35). In IPD, standardised PROMs each revealed similar group mean scores, but scores within individuals diverged between PROMs (LoA between -7 to -38 and +25 to 52).
Different standardised PROMs give similar PASS thresholds in group data. PASS thresholds may be affected more by patient and treatment characteristics than between PROMs. However, different PROMs give divergent scores within individuals, possibly reflecting different experiences of pain.
为便于研究间的数据汇总,我们以患者可接受症状状态评分(PASS)为标准,探讨骨关节炎或膝关节创伤所致膝关节疼痛患者自我报告结局指标(PROMs)的统一问题。
我们对PASS评分进行了系统文献综述(SLR),并对同时完成的PROM配对的评分分布进行了个体参与者数据(IPD)分析。数字评定量表(NRS)、视觉模拟量表、膝关节损伤和骨关节炎疗效评分(KOOS)以及西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)疼痛问卷被标准化为0至100(最差)量表。Meta回归探讨了PASS的相关性。Bland Altman图使用来自WebEx、KICK、MenTOR和NEKO研究的IPD比较了个体内的PROM评分。
SLR确定了18项报告膝关节疼痛患者PASS的研究。汇总标准化PASS为27(95%CI:21至35;n = 6339)。每个标准化PROM的PASS在统计学上相似。较低的PASS与较低的基线疼痛相关(β = 0.49,P = 0.01)以及治疗开始后较长时间相关(Q = 6.35,P = 0.04)。PASS评分在韧带断裂时最低(12,95%CI:11至13),但在膝关节骨关节炎(31,95%CI:26至36)和半月板撕裂(27,95%CI:20至35)之间相似。在IPD中,每个标准化PROM均显示出相似的组平均评分,但个体内评分在不同PROM之间存在差异(一致性界限在 -7至 -38和 +25至52之间)。
不同的标准化PROM在组数据中给出相似的PASS阈值。PASS阈值可能受患者和治疗特征的影响大于不同PROM之间的影响。然而,不同的PROM在个体内给出不同的评分,这可能反映了不同的疼痛体验。