Reliability, validity and generalizability of multidimensional pain assessment tools used in postoperative adult patients: a systematic review protocol.

Samuel Lapkin, Ritin Fernandez, Laura Ellwood, Ashish Diwan
{"title":"Reliability, validity and generalizability of multidimensional pain assessment tools used in postoperative adult patients: a systematic review protocol.","authors":"Samuel Lapkin,&nbsp;Ritin Fernandez,&nbsp;Laura Ellwood,&nbsp;Ashish Diwan","doi":"10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review is to evaluate the measurement properties of multidimensional pain assessment tools for postoperative pain in adults.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Effective postoperative pain management increases patient safety and satisfaction, and reduces healthcare costs. The most commonly used postoperative pain assessment tools only evaluate pain intensity, which is only one aspect of the sensory dimension of pain. Pain is a subjective phenomenon, and variability exists among patients. Efforts are underway to incorporate multidimensional assessment tools for postoperative pain assessment in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Eligible studies will include postoperative patients aged 18 years and older from all surgical disciplines. Studies evaluating multidimensional assessment instruments for the measurement of postoperative pain during the first two weeks following surgery will be considered. Studies will include the following measurement properties of assessment tools as outcomes: reliability, validity and generalizability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Trials (CENTRAL) will be searched, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and multiple gray literature sources. There will be no limitations on publication date. Titles and abstracts will be screened by independent reviewers for inclusion. The full text of selected papers will be retrieved and assessed against the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers will assess papers for methodological quality using the COSMIN checklist, and papers with poor scores on relevant items will be excluded. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers using a standardized data extraction tool. Statistical pooling will be performed, if possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":73539,"journal":{"name":"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports","volume":"17 7","pages":"1334-1340"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003819","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003819","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this review is to evaluate the measurement properties of multidimensional pain assessment tools for postoperative pain in adults.

Introduction: Effective postoperative pain management increases patient safety and satisfaction, and reduces healthcare costs. The most commonly used postoperative pain assessment tools only evaluate pain intensity, which is only one aspect of the sensory dimension of pain. Pain is a subjective phenomenon, and variability exists among patients. Efforts are underway to incorporate multidimensional assessment tools for postoperative pain assessment in clinical practice.

Inclusion criteria: Eligible studies will include postoperative patients aged 18 years and older from all surgical disciplines. Studies evaluating multidimensional assessment instruments for the measurement of postoperative pain during the first two weeks following surgery will be considered. Studies will include the following measurement properties of assessment tools as outcomes: reliability, validity and generalizability.

Methods: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Trials (CENTRAL) will be searched, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and multiple gray literature sources. There will be no limitations on publication date. Titles and abstracts will be screened by independent reviewers for inclusion. The full text of selected papers will be retrieved and assessed against the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers will assess papers for methodological quality using the COSMIN checklist, and papers with poor scores on relevant items will be excluded. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers using a standardized data extraction tool. Statistical pooling will be performed, if possible.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于成人术后患者的多维疼痛评估工具的可靠性、有效性和普遍性:一项系统评价方案。
目的:本综述的目的是评估成人术后疼痛的多维疼痛评估工具的测量特性。有效的术后疼痛管理可以提高患者的安全性和满意度,并降低医疗成本。最常用的术后疼痛评估工具仅评估疼痛强度,这只是疼痛感觉维度的一个方面。疼痛是一种主观现象,患者之间存在差异。努力正在进行纳入多维评估工具的术后疼痛评估在临床实践中。纳入标准:符合条件的研究将包括来自所有外科学科的18岁及以上的术后患者。在手术后的前两周,将考虑评估多维评估工具测量术后疼痛的研究。研究将包括评估工具作为结果的以下测量属性:可靠性、有效性和概括性。方法:检索MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO和Cochrane Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov和多个灰色文献来源。没有出版日期的限制。题目和摘要将由独立审稿人筛选纳入。将检索选定论文的全文,并根据纳入标准进行评估。两名独立审稿人将使用COSMIN核对表评估论文的方法学质量,相关项目得分较低的论文将被排除在外。数据将由两名独立的审稿人使用标准化的数据提取工具提取。如果可能,将执行统计池。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Approaches to implementing individual placement and support in the health and welfare sectors: a scoping review protocol. Retention of doctors in emergency medicine: a scoping review protocol. Evaluations of health care delivery models in Australia: a scoping review protocol. Meaningful and culturally appropriate palliative care for Chinese immigrants with a terminal condition: a qualitative systematic review protocol. Experiences of outdoor nature-based therapeutic recreation programs for persons with a mental illness: a qualitative systematic review protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1