描述并初步验证了一种新的疼痛强度测量方法:不同时使用镇痛剂的基础疼痛数字分级量表(Numeric Rating Scale of Underlying Pain)。

IF 5.9 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY PAIN® Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-02 DOI:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003150
Pradeep Suri, Patrick J Heagerty, Andrew Timmons, Mark P Jensen
{"title":"描述并初步验证了一种新的疼痛强度测量方法:不同时使用镇痛剂的基础疼痛数字分级量表(Numeric Rating Scale of Underlying Pain)。","authors":"Pradeep Suri, Patrick J Heagerty, Andrew Timmons, Mark P Jensen","doi":"10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Although many individuals with chronic pain use analgesics, the methods used in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) do not sufficiently account for confounding by differential post-randomization analgesic use. This may lead to underestimation of average treatment effects and diminished power. We introduce (1) a new measure-the Numeric Rating Scale of Underlying Pain without concurrent Analgesic use (NRS-UP (A) )-which can shift the estimand of interest in an RCT to target effects of a treatment on pain intensity in the hypothetical situation where analgesic use was not occurring at the time of outcome assessment; and (2) a new pain construct-an individuals' perceived effect of analgesic use on pain intensity (E A ). The NRS-UP (A) may be used as a secondary outcome in RCTs of point treatments or nonpharmacologic treatments. Among 662 adults with back pain in primary care, participants' mean value of the NRS-UP (A) among those using analgesics was 1.2 NRS points higher than their value on the conventional pain intensity NRS, reflecting a mean E A value of -1.2 NRS points and a perceived beneficial effect of analgesics. More negative values of E A (ie, greater perceived benefit) were associated with a greater number of analgesics used but not with pain intensity, analgesic type, or opioid dose. The NRS-UP (A) and E A were significantly associated with future analgesic use 6 months later, but the conventional pain NRS was not. Future research is needed to determine whether the NRS-UP (A), used as a secondary outcome may allow pain RCTs to target alternative estimands with clinical relevance.</p>","PeriodicalId":19921,"journal":{"name":"PAIN®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189761/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Description and initial validation of a novel measure of pain intensity: the Numeric Rating Scale of Underlying Pain without concurrent Analgesic use.\",\"authors\":\"Pradeep Suri, Patrick J Heagerty, Andrew Timmons, Mark P Jensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Although many individuals with chronic pain use analgesics, the methods used in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) do not sufficiently account for confounding by differential post-randomization analgesic use. This may lead to underestimation of average treatment effects and diminished power. We introduce (1) a new measure-the Numeric Rating Scale of Underlying Pain without concurrent Analgesic use (NRS-UP (A) )-which can shift the estimand of interest in an RCT to target effects of a treatment on pain intensity in the hypothetical situation where analgesic use was not occurring at the time of outcome assessment; and (2) a new pain construct-an individuals' perceived effect of analgesic use on pain intensity (E A ). The NRS-UP (A) may be used as a secondary outcome in RCTs of point treatments or nonpharmacologic treatments. Among 662 adults with back pain in primary care, participants' mean value of the NRS-UP (A) among those using analgesics was 1.2 NRS points higher than their value on the conventional pain intensity NRS, reflecting a mean E A value of -1.2 NRS points and a perceived beneficial effect of analgesics. More negative values of E A (ie, greater perceived benefit) were associated with a greater number of analgesics used but not with pain intensity, analgesic type, or opioid dose. The NRS-UP (A) and E A were significantly associated with future analgesic use 6 months later, but the conventional pain NRS was not. Future research is needed to determine whether the NRS-UP (A), used as a secondary outcome may allow pain RCTs to target alternative estimands with clinical relevance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PAIN®\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189761/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PAIN®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003150\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PAIN®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003150","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:尽管许多慢性疼痛患者都会使用镇痛药,但许多随机对照试验(RCT)所使用的方法并没有充分考虑到随机后镇痛药使用情况不同所造成的混杂因素。这可能会导致平均治疗效果被低估,并削弱治疗效果。我们引入了(1)一种新的测量方法--不同时使用镇痛药的基础疼痛数值评定量表(NRS-UP(A))--它可以将 RCT 中关注的估计变量转移到结果评估时未使用镇痛药的假设情况下治疗对疼痛强度的影响;以及(2)一种新的疼痛结构--个人对镇痛药使用对疼痛强度影响的感知(EA)。NRS-UP(A) 可作为点治疗或非药物治疗 RCT 的次要结果。在 662 名患有背痛的成人初级保健患者中,使用镇痛剂的参与者的 NRS-UP(A) 平均值比其传统疼痛强度 NRS 值高 1.2 个 NRS 点,这反映了平均 EA 值为 -1.2 个 NRS 点以及镇痛剂的感知有益效应。EA 的负值越大(即感知到的益处越大)与使用的镇痛剂数量越多有关,但与疼痛强度、镇痛剂类型或阿片类药物剂量无关。6 个月后,NRS-UP(A) 和 EA 与未来镇痛剂的使用有显著相关性,但与传统的疼痛 NRS 无关。未来的研究需要确定 NRS-UP(A)作为次要结果是否可以使疼痛 RCT 研究针对具有临床意义的其他估计指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Description and initial validation of a novel measure of pain intensity: the Numeric Rating Scale of Underlying Pain without concurrent Analgesic use.

Abstract: Although many individuals with chronic pain use analgesics, the methods used in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) do not sufficiently account for confounding by differential post-randomization analgesic use. This may lead to underestimation of average treatment effects and diminished power. We introduce (1) a new measure-the Numeric Rating Scale of Underlying Pain without concurrent Analgesic use (NRS-UP (A) )-which can shift the estimand of interest in an RCT to target effects of a treatment on pain intensity in the hypothetical situation where analgesic use was not occurring at the time of outcome assessment; and (2) a new pain construct-an individuals' perceived effect of analgesic use on pain intensity (E A ). The NRS-UP (A) may be used as a secondary outcome in RCTs of point treatments or nonpharmacologic treatments. Among 662 adults with back pain in primary care, participants' mean value of the NRS-UP (A) among those using analgesics was 1.2 NRS points higher than their value on the conventional pain intensity NRS, reflecting a mean E A value of -1.2 NRS points and a perceived beneficial effect of analgesics. More negative values of E A (ie, greater perceived benefit) were associated with a greater number of analgesics used but not with pain intensity, analgesic type, or opioid dose. The NRS-UP (A) and E A were significantly associated with future analgesic use 6 months later, but the conventional pain NRS was not. Future research is needed to determine whether the NRS-UP (A), used as a secondary outcome may allow pain RCTs to target alternative estimands with clinical relevance.

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
PAIN®
PAIN® 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
8.10%
发文量
242
审稿时长
9 months
期刊介绍: PAIN® is the official publication of the International Association for the Study of Pain and publishes original research on the nature,mechanisms and treatment of pain.PAIN® provides a forum for the dissemination of research in the basic and clinical sciences of multidisciplinary interest.
期刊最新文献
Reply to Roman-Juan et al. Reply to Wideman et al. The dynamics of pain avoidance: the exploration-exploitation dilemma. Patterns of physiotherapy attendance in compensated Australian workers with low back pain: a retrospective cohort study. The downside to choice: instrumental control increases conditioned nocebo hyperalgesia.
×
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