Ali Myzoon, Tibble Holly, Brady Marian C, Quinn Terence J, Sunnerhagen Katharina S, Venketasubramanian Narayanaswamy, Shuaib Ashfaq, Pandyan Anand, Mead Gillian
School of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
NMAHP Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Front Neurol. 2024 Jan 25;15:1328832. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1328832. eCollection 2024.
We describe how well general pain reported in multidomain assessment tools correlated with pain-specific assessment tools; associations between general pain, activities of daily living and independence after stroke.
Analyses of individual participant data (IPD) from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA) described correlation coefficients examining (i) direct comparisons of assessments from pain-specific and multidomain assessment tools that included pain, (ii) indirect comparisons of pain assessments with the Barthel Index (BI) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and (iii) whether pain identification could be enhanced by accounting for reported usual activities, self-care, mobility and anxiety/depression; factors associated with pain.
European Quality of Life 3- and 5-Level (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L), RAND 36 Item Health Survey 1.0 (SF-36) or the 0-10 Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were available from 10/94 studies (IPD = 10,002). The 0-10 NPRS was the only available pain-specific assessment tool and was a reference for comparison with other tools. Pearson correlation coefficients between the 0-10 NPRS and (A) the EQ-5D-3L and (B) EQ5D-5 L were = 0.572 ( = 436) and = 0.305 ( = 1,134), respectively. mRS was better aligned with pain by EQ-5D-3L ( = 8,966; = 0.340) than by SF-36 ( = 623; = 0.318). BI aligned better with pain by SF-36 ( = 623; = -0.320). Creating a composite score using the EQ-5D 3 L and 5 L comprising pain, mobility, usual-activities, self-care and anxiety/depression did not improve correlation with the 0-10 NPRS.
The EQ-5D-3L pain domain aligned better than the EQ-5D-5L with the 0-10 NPRS and may inform general pain description where resources and assessment burden hinder use of additional, pain-specific assessments.
我们描述了多领域评估工具中报告的一般疼痛与疼痛特异性评估工具之间的相关性如何;卒中后一般疼痛、日常生活活动与独立性之间的关联。
对来自虚拟国际卒中试验档案库(VISTA)的个体参与者数据(IPD)进行分析,描述了相关系数,用于检验:(i)包含疼痛的疼痛特异性评估工具与多领域评估工具的评估直接比较;(ii)疼痛评估与Barthel指数(BI)和改良Rankin量表(mRS)的间接比较;(iii)考虑报告的日常活动、自我护理、活动能力以及焦虑/抑郁(与疼痛相关的因素)是否可以增强疼痛识别。
10/94项研究(IPD = 10,002)提供了欧洲生活质量3级和5级(EQ - 5D - 3L和EQ - 5D - 5L)、兰德36项健康调查1.0版(SF - 36)或0 - 10数字疼痛评分量表(NPRS)。0 - 10 NPRS是唯一可用的疼痛特异性评估工具,是与其他工具进行比较的参考。0 - 10 NPRS与(A)EQ - 5D - 3L和(B)EQ - 5D - 5L之间的Pearson相关系数分别为 = 0.572( = 436)和 = 0.305( = 1,134)。mRS与EQ - 5D - 3L( = 8,966; = 0.340)的疼痛相关性优于与SF - 36( = 623; = 0.318)的相关性。BI与SF - 36( = 623; = -0.320)的疼痛相关性更好。使用EQ - 5D 3L和5L创建一个包含疼痛、活动能力、日常活动、自我护理和焦虑/抑郁的综合评分,并没有改善与0 - 10 NPRS的相关性。
EQ - 5D - 3L疼痛领域与0 - 10 NPRS的相关性优于EQ - 5D - 5L,在资源和评估负担阻碍使用额外的疼痛特异性评估时,可能有助于一般疼痛描述。