Suppr超能文献

6项试验中简明疼痛量表和PEG疼痛量表的可比最小重要差异及反应性

Comparable Minimally Important Differences and Responsiveness of Brief Pain Inventory and PEG Pain Scales across 6 Trials.

作者信息

Reed David E, Stump Timothy E, Monahan Patrick O, Kroenke Kurt

机构信息

Health Services Research & Development, Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, VA Puget Sound Health Care, Seattle, Washington; Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Indiana University Fairbanks School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.

出版信息

J Pain. 2024 Jan;25(1):142-152. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.07.028. Epub 2023 Aug 5.

Abstract

The 3-item pain intensity (P), interference with the enjoyment of life (E), and interference with general activity (G), or PEG, has become one of the most widely used measures of pain severity and interference. The minimally important differences (MID) and responsiveness of the PEG are essential metrics for solidifying its role in research and clinical care. The current study aims to establish the MID and responsiveness of the PEG by synthesizing data from 1,710 participants across 6 controlled trials. MIDs were estimated using absolute score changes among individuals reporting their pain was "a little better" on a retrospective global change anchor as well as distribution-based estimates using standard deviation thresholds and 1 and 2 standard errors of measurement. Responsiveness was assessed using standardized response means, area under the curve, and treatment effect sizes. MID estimates for the PEG ranged from 0.60 to 1.1 when using 0.35 SD, and 0.78 to 1.22 using 1 standard error of measurement. MID estimates using the global anchor had somewhat more variability but most estimates ranged from 1.0 to 1.75. Responsiveness effect sizes were generally large (>.80) for standardized response means and moderate (>.50) for treatment effect. Similarly, the most area under the curve values demonstrated an acceptable level of scale responsiveness (≥.70). Importantly, MID estimates and responsiveness of the PEG and BPI scales were largely comparable when aggregating data across trials. Our synthesis indicates that 1 point is a reasonable MID estimate on these 0- to 10-point pain scales, with 2 points being an upper bound. PERSPECTIVE: This article synthesizes data from 6 clinical trials to establish the minimally important difference (MID) and responsiveness of the 3-item PEG pain scale. The PEG demonstrated good responsiveness, and 1 to 2 points proved to be reasonable estimates for the lower and upper bounds of the MID.

摘要

包含疼痛强度(P)、对生活乐趣的干扰(E)和对日常活动的干扰(G)这三项内容的指标,即PEG,已成为衡量疼痛严重程度和干扰程度应用最为广泛的指标之一。PEG的最小重要差异(MID)和反应性是巩固其在研究和临床护理中作用的关键指标。当前研究旨在通过综合6项对照试验中1710名参与者的数据来确定PEG的MID和反应性。使用在回顾性整体变化锚定上报告其疼痛“稍有好转”的个体之间的绝对得分变化以及使用标准差阈值和测量的1个及2个标准误的基于分布的估计来估计MID。使用标准化反应均值、曲线下面积和治疗效应大小来评估反应性。当使用0.35标准差时,PEG的MID估计范围为0.60至1.1,使用1个测量标准误时为0.78至1.22。使用整体锚定的MID估计略有更多变异性,但大多数估计范围为1.0至1.75。标准化反应均值的反应性效应大小一般较大(>.80),治疗效应的效应大小适中(>.50)。同样,大多数曲线下面积值显示出可接受的量表反应性水平(≥.70)。重要的是,当汇总各试验的数据时,PEG和简明疼痛量表(BPI)的MID估计和反应性在很大程度上具有可比性。我们的综合分析表明,在这些0至10分的疼痛量表上,1分是合理的MID估计,2分是上限。观点:本文综合了6项临床试验的数据,以确定3项PEG疼痛量表的最小重要差异(MID)和反应性。PEG显示出良好的反应性,1至2分被证明是MID下限和上限的合理估计。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

3
Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders.组间最小重要变化与个体治疗反应者。
Qual Life Res. 2021 Oct;30(10):2765-2772. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02897-z. Epub 2021 Jun 15.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验