Postsurgical pain outcome assessment

被引:103
作者
Jensen, MP
Chen, C
Brugger, AM
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Sch Med, Dept Rehabil Med, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Med Ctr, Ctr Multidisciplinary Pain, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[3] Pharmacia Corp, Skokie, IL 60077 USA
关键词
pain assessment; sensitivity; reliability;
D O I
10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00063-5
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Reliable and valid measures of pain are essential for conducting clinical trials of pain treatments. Perhaps the most important aspect of a pain measure's validity is its sensitivity, or ability to detect changes in pain over time and due to treatment. Several factors may affect a measure's sensitivity, including the complexity of the rating task for the measure, the number of pain intensity levels assessed by the measure, the dimension of pain assessed (e.g. pain intensity vs. pain relief), and the number of individual ratings (e.g. single rating vs. composite score) used to create the measure. The purpose of this study was to compare the relative sensitivity of three measures of outcome and a composite made up of all three measures for detecting analgesic effects in two samples of persons participating in a randomized controlled trial. One hundred and twenty-three patients who had undergone knee surgery and 124 women who had undergone a laparotomy were given one of three medications in the day after their surgery: morphine, ketorolac, or placebo. Two measures of pain intensity (a visual analog scale (VAS) and a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS)) were administered at baseline, and these measures plus a 5-point VRS of pain relief were administered at 16 additional time points up to 24 h following surgery. As predicted, we found variability in the sensitivity of the outcome measures used in these studies, with the 4-point VRS showing less sensitivity than the VAS or relief ratings. However, contrary to our prediction, a composite measure of outcome made up of all three measures was not consistently superior to the individual measures for detecting treatment effects. Finally, we found that pain relief ratings were related to, but also distinct from, change in pain intensity as measured by changes in pain intensity ratings from baseline to each postmedication assessment point. These findings have important implications for the assessment of pain in clinical trials. (C) 2002 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:101 / 109
页数:9
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
BARTON SF, 2002, IN PRESS ANESTHESIOL
[2]  
Bolton JE, 1998, J MANIP PHYSIOL THER, V21, P1
[3]   ASSESSMENT OF CHRONIC PAIN .1. ASPECTS OF THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE VISUAL ANALOG SCALE [J].
CARLSSON, AM .
PAIN, 1983, 16 (01) :87-101
[4]  
CARR DB, 1992, AHCPR PUB
[5]  
Cronbach L.J., 1970, ESSENTIAL PSYCHOL TE
[6]   PAIN RELIEF FOR CANCER-PATIENTS [J].
DALTON, JA ;
TOOMEY, T ;
WORKMAN, MR .
CANCER NURSING, 1988, 11 (06) :322-328
[7]  
DWORKIN SF, 1990, PAIN S, V41, pS290, DOI DOI 10.1016/0304-3959(90)92696-N
[8]   Development and preliminary validation of a pain measure specific to neuropathic pain: The neuropathic pain scale [J].
Galer, BS ;
Jensen, MP .
NEUROLOGY, 1997, 48 (02) :332-338
[9]  
Hardy JD., 1952, PAIN SENSATIONS REAC
[10]   Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures [J].
Jensen, MP ;
Turner, JA ;
Romano, JM ;
Fisher, LD .
PAIN, 1999, 83 (02) :157-162