painDETECT问卷是否确定肌肉骨骼疼痛患者的条件性疼痛调节受损?-诊断准确性研究。

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION Archives of physiotherapy Pub Date : 2023-09-18 DOI:10.1186/s40945-023-00171-8
Juliana Valentim Bittencourt, Eduardo Gallas Leivas, Arthur de Sá Ferreira, Leandro Alberto Calazans Nogueira
{"title":"painDETECT问卷是否确定肌肉骨骼疼痛患者的条件性疼痛调节受损?-诊断准确性研究。","authors":"Juliana Valentim Bittencourt, Eduardo Gallas Leivas, Arthur de Sá Ferreira, Leandro Alberto Calazans Nogueira","doi":"10.1186/s40945-023-00171-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People with neuropathic-like symptoms had more unfavourable pain features than people with nociceptive. Moreover, deficient conditioned pain modulation is common in people with neuropathic-like symptoms. PainDETECT questionnaire have been used to assess the central sensitisation sign and symptoms. However, whether the painDETECT questionnaire can identify the conditioned pain modulation's impairment is still unknown. Therefore, the current study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the painDETECT questionnaire in detecting the impairment of conditioned pain modulation in people with musculoskeletal pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a diagnostic accuracy comparing the painDETECT questionnaire (index method) with the cold pressor test, the psychophysical test used to assess the conditioned pain modulation (reference standard). We determined diagnostic accuracy by calculating sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likely hood ratios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We retrospectively enrolled 308 people with musculoskeletal pain in outpatient departments. Most participants were female (n 20 = 220, 71.4%) and had a mean age of 52.2 (± 15.0) years. One hundred seventy-three (56.1%) participants were classified as nociceptive pain, 69 (22.4%) as unclear, and 66 (21.4%) as neuropathic-like symptoms. According to the cold pressor test, 60 (19.4%) participants presented impairment of conditioned pain modulation. The cutoff point of 12 of the painDETECT questionnaire showed values of diagnostic accuracy below 70% compared to the cold pressor test, except for a negative predictive value [76.9 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 71.7 to 81.5]. The cutoff point 19 showed high specificity (78.6%, 95% CI 73.0 to 83.5), high negative predictive value (80.5%, 95% CI 78.1 to 82.7), and accuracy of 67.5% compared to the cold pressor test.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The painDETECT questionnaire seems valuable for ruling out people with musculoskeletal pain and impairment of conditioned pain modulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":72290,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physiotherapy","volume":"13 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10507948/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the painDETECT questionnaire identify impaired conditioned pain modulation in people with musculoskeletal pain? - a diagnostic accuracy study.\",\"authors\":\"Juliana Valentim Bittencourt, Eduardo Gallas Leivas, Arthur de Sá Ferreira, Leandro Alberto Calazans Nogueira\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40945-023-00171-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People with neuropathic-like symptoms had more unfavourable pain features than people with nociceptive. Moreover, deficient conditioned pain modulation is common in people with neuropathic-like symptoms. PainDETECT questionnaire have been used to assess the central sensitisation sign and symptoms. However, whether the painDETECT questionnaire can identify the conditioned pain modulation's impairment is still unknown. Therefore, the current study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the painDETECT questionnaire in detecting the impairment of conditioned pain modulation in people with musculoskeletal pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a diagnostic accuracy comparing the painDETECT questionnaire (index method) with the cold pressor test, the psychophysical test used to assess the conditioned pain modulation (reference standard). We determined diagnostic accuracy by calculating sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likely hood ratios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We retrospectively enrolled 308 people with musculoskeletal pain in outpatient departments. Most participants were female (n 20 = 220, 71.4%) and had a mean age of 52.2 (± 15.0) years. One hundred seventy-three (56.1%) participants were classified as nociceptive pain, 69 (22.4%) as unclear, and 66 (21.4%) as neuropathic-like symptoms. According to the cold pressor test, 60 (19.4%) participants presented impairment of conditioned pain modulation. The cutoff point of 12 of the painDETECT questionnaire showed values of diagnostic accuracy below 70% compared to the cold pressor test, except for a negative predictive value [76.9 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 71.7 to 81.5]. The cutoff point 19 showed high specificity (78.6%, 95% CI 73.0 to 83.5), high negative predictive value (80.5%, 95% CI 78.1 to 82.7), and accuracy of 67.5% compared to the cold pressor test.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The painDETECT questionnaire seems valuable for ruling out people with musculoskeletal pain and impairment of conditioned pain modulation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10507948/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-023-00171-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-023-00171-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有神经性样症状的人比有伤害性症状的人有更不利的疼痛特征。此外,条件性疼痛调节不足在有神经性样症状的人中很常见。PainDETECT问卷已用于评估中枢敏化体征和症状。然而,painDETECT问卷是否能识别条件性疼痛调节的损伤仍然未知。因此,本研究旨在评估painDETECT问卷在检测肌肉骨骼疼痛患者条件性疼痛调节障碍方面的诊断准确性。方法:我们将painDETECT问卷(指数法)与冷加压试验(用于评估条件性疼痛调节的心理物理学试验)(参考标准)进行诊断准确性比较。我们通过计算敏感性、特异性、预测值和可能的胡德比率来确定诊断准确性。结果:我们对308名门诊肌肉骨骼疼痛患者进行了回顾性研究。大多数参与者是女性(n 20 = 220,71.4%),平均年龄52.2(± 15.0)年。173名(56.1%)参与者被归类为伤害性疼痛,69名(22.4%)被归类为不清楚,66名(21.4%)被分类为神经性样症状。根据冷加压试验,60名(19.4%)参与者表现出条件性疼痛调节障碍。painDETECT问卷的12个截止点显示,与冷加压试验相比,除了阴性预测值[76.9 95%置信区间(CI)71.7至81.5]外,诊断准确率低于70%。截止点19显示出高特异性(78.6%,95%CI 73.0至83.5)、高阴性预测值(80.5%,95%CI 78.1至82.7),与冷加压试验相比,准确率为67.5%。结论:painDETECT问卷似乎有助于排除肌肉骨骼疼痛和条件性疼痛调节障碍的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Does the painDETECT questionnaire identify impaired conditioned pain modulation in people with musculoskeletal pain? - a diagnostic accuracy study.

Background: People with neuropathic-like symptoms had more unfavourable pain features than people with nociceptive. Moreover, deficient conditioned pain modulation is common in people with neuropathic-like symptoms. PainDETECT questionnaire have been used to assess the central sensitisation sign and symptoms. However, whether the painDETECT questionnaire can identify the conditioned pain modulation's impairment is still unknown. Therefore, the current study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the painDETECT questionnaire in detecting the impairment of conditioned pain modulation in people with musculoskeletal pain.

Methods: We conducted a diagnostic accuracy comparing the painDETECT questionnaire (index method) with the cold pressor test, the psychophysical test used to assess the conditioned pain modulation (reference standard). We determined diagnostic accuracy by calculating sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likely hood ratios.

Results: We retrospectively enrolled 308 people with musculoskeletal pain in outpatient departments. Most participants were female (n 20 = 220, 71.4%) and had a mean age of 52.2 (± 15.0) years. One hundred seventy-three (56.1%) participants were classified as nociceptive pain, 69 (22.4%) as unclear, and 66 (21.4%) as neuropathic-like symptoms. According to the cold pressor test, 60 (19.4%) participants presented impairment of conditioned pain modulation. The cutoff point of 12 of the painDETECT questionnaire showed values of diagnostic accuracy below 70% compared to the cold pressor test, except for a negative predictive value [76.9 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 71.7 to 81.5]. The cutoff point 19 showed high specificity (78.6%, 95% CI 73.0 to 83.5), high negative predictive value (80.5%, 95% CI 78.1 to 82.7), and accuracy of 67.5% compared to the cold pressor test.

Conclusion: The painDETECT questionnaire seems valuable for ruling out people with musculoskeletal pain and impairment of conditioned pain modulation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Indoor and outdoor 10-Meter Walk Test and Timed Up and Go in patients after total hip arthroplasty: a reliability and comparative study. Erratum in: Pragmatism in manual therapy trials for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of goniometric finger range of motion using a written protocol. A decade of growth: preserving the original meaning of research for physiotherapists. Neurological conditions and community-based physical activity: physical therapists' belief and actions.
×
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