评估围手术期疼痛管理有效性和疗效的一组核心结果测量工具:国际IMI-PainCare PROMPT Delphi共识过程的结果。

IF 9.2 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY British journal of anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2025.01.029
Esther M. Pogatzki-Zahn , Sarah De Lucia , Claudia Weinmann , Hauke Heitkamp , Lone Hummelshoj , Hiltrud Liedgens , Winfried Meissner , Katy Vincent , Jan Vollert , Peter Zahn
{"title":"评估围手术期疼痛管理有效性和疗效的一组核心结果测量工具:国际IMI-PainCare PROMPT Delphi共识过程的结果。","authors":"Esther M. Pogatzki-Zahn ,&nbsp;Sarah De Lucia ,&nbsp;Claudia Weinmann ,&nbsp;Hauke Heitkamp ,&nbsp;Lone Hummelshoj ,&nbsp;Hiltrud Liedgens ,&nbsp;Winfried Meissner ,&nbsp;Katy Vincent ,&nbsp;Jan Vollert ,&nbsp;Peter Zahn","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2025.01.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Effective perioperative pain management is crucial to prevent patient suffering, delayed recovery, chronic postsurgical pain, and long-term opioid use. However, the heterogeneous use of outcomes in studies complicates evidence synthesis and might not accurately reflect the experiences of individual patients. We initiated a consensus process to establish a core outcome set (COS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in postoperative pain, building upon the earlier consensus on a COS of domains.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Potential PROMs were identified via systematic literature searches for the domains pain intensity (with subdomains at rest and during activity), physical function, self-efficacy, and adverse events, followed by appraisal of psychometric properties according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology. Then, a consensus meeting was convened, followed by a Delphi process with an international, multiprofessional panel of stakeholders, including those with lived experience. A conclusive consensus meeting approved the final COS of PROMs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The final COS consists of one unidimensional numerical rating scale for assessing pain intensity on average, worst pain intensity, pain intensity at rest, and procedure-specific pain intensity during activity; one unidimensional scale for pain interfering with activities in bed; one procedure-specific scale for assessing physical function; the IMI-PainCare PROMPT adaptation of the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale for assessing self-efficacy; and the IMI-PainCare PROMPT adaptation of the Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale for assessing adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Comprehensive use of a core outcome set will help harmonise outcome assessment, facilitate comparisons between studies, promote patient-centred research, and improve postoperative pain care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":"134 5","pages":"Pages 1460-1473"},"PeriodicalIF":9.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A core outcome set of measurement instruments for assessing effectiveness and efficacy of perioperative pain management: results of the international IMI-PainCare PROMPT Delphi consensus process\",\"authors\":\"Esther M. Pogatzki-Zahn ,&nbsp;Sarah De Lucia ,&nbsp;Claudia Weinmann ,&nbsp;Hauke Heitkamp ,&nbsp;Lone Hummelshoj ,&nbsp;Hiltrud Liedgens ,&nbsp;Winfried Meissner ,&nbsp;Katy Vincent ,&nbsp;Jan Vollert ,&nbsp;Peter Zahn\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bja.2025.01.029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Effective perioperative pain management is crucial to prevent patient suffering, delayed recovery, chronic postsurgical pain, and long-term opioid use. However, the heterogeneous use of outcomes in studies complicates evidence synthesis and might not accurately reflect the experiences of individual patients. We initiated a consensus process to establish a core outcome set (COS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in postoperative pain, building upon the earlier consensus on a COS of domains.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Potential PROMs were identified via systematic literature searches for the domains pain intensity (with subdomains at rest and during activity), physical function, self-efficacy, and adverse events, followed by appraisal of psychometric properties according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology. Then, a consensus meeting was convened, followed by a Delphi process with an international, multiprofessional panel of stakeholders, including those with lived experience. A conclusive consensus meeting approved the final COS of PROMs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The final COS consists of one unidimensional numerical rating scale for assessing pain intensity on average, worst pain intensity, pain intensity at rest, and procedure-specific pain intensity during activity; one unidimensional scale for pain interfering with activities in bed; one procedure-specific scale for assessing physical function; the IMI-PainCare PROMPT adaptation of the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale for assessing self-efficacy; and the IMI-PainCare PROMPT adaptation of the Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale for assessing adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Comprehensive use of a core outcome set will help harmonise outcome assessment, facilitate comparisons between studies, promote patient-centred research, and improve postoperative pain care.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\"134 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1460-1473\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091225000893\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091225000893","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有效的围手术期疼痛管理对于预防患者痛苦、延迟恢复、术后慢性疼痛和长期使用阿片类药物至关重要。然而,研究结果的异质性使用使证据合成复杂化,可能无法准确反映个体患者的经历。我们发起了一个共识过程,建立一个核心结果集(COS)的患者报告的结果措施(PROMs)在术后疼痛,建立在早期共识的COS领域。方法:通过对疼痛强度(休息时和活动时的子域)、身体功能、自我效能感和不良事件等领域的系统文献检索,确定潜在的PROMs,然后根据基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准对心理测量特性进行评估。然后,召开了一次共识会议,随后是一个由国际、多专业的利益相关者小组(包括那些有实际经验的人)组成的德尔菲程序。一个决定性的共识会议批准了PROMs的最终COS。结果:最终COS包括一个一维数值评定量表,用于评估平均疼痛强度、最严重疼痛强度、休息时疼痛强度和活动时特定手术疼痛强度;疼痛干扰床上活动的单维量表;一个评估身体机能的特定程序量表;IMI-PainCare提示适应关节炎自我效能量表评估自我效能;以及IMI-PainCare PROMPT对阿片类药物相关症状困扰量表的适应性,以评估不良事件。结论:综合使用核心结果集将有助于协调结果评估,促进研究之间的比较,促进以患者为中心的研究,并改善术后疼痛护理。
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
A core outcome set of measurement instruments for assessing effectiveness and efficacy of perioperative pain management: results of the international IMI-PainCare PROMPT Delphi consensus process

Background

Effective perioperative pain management is crucial to prevent patient suffering, delayed recovery, chronic postsurgical pain, and long-term opioid use. However, the heterogeneous use of outcomes in studies complicates evidence synthesis and might not accurately reflect the experiences of individual patients. We initiated a consensus process to establish a core outcome set (COS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in postoperative pain, building upon the earlier consensus on a COS of domains.

Methods

Potential PROMs were identified via systematic literature searches for the domains pain intensity (with subdomains at rest and during activity), physical function, self-efficacy, and adverse events, followed by appraisal of psychometric properties according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology. Then, a consensus meeting was convened, followed by a Delphi process with an international, multiprofessional panel of stakeholders, including those with lived experience. A conclusive consensus meeting approved the final COS of PROMs.

Results

The final COS consists of one unidimensional numerical rating scale for assessing pain intensity on average, worst pain intensity, pain intensity at rest, and procedure-specific pain intensity during activity; one unidimensional scale for pain interfering with activities in bed; one procedure-specific scale for assessing physical function; the IMI-PainCare PROMPT adaptation of the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale for assessing self-efficacy; and the IMI-PainCare PROMPT adaptation of the Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale for assessing adverse events.

Conclusions

Comprehensive use of a core outcome set will help harmonise outcome assessment, facilitate comparisons between studies, promote patient-centred research, and improve postoperative pain care.
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
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
期刊最新文献
Duration of analgesia after supraclavicular brachial plexus block with intravenous dexamethasone with or without dexmedetomidine: a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple-blind trial The Video Classification of Intubation (VCI) score for videolaryngoscopy: a multicentre international feasibility study Dysfunctional resting state network connectivity predicts postoperative delirium after major surgery Hospital variation in ‘days alive and out of hospital’ after colorectal cancer surgery: a national retrospective cohort study IMpact of PerioperAtive KeTamine on Enhanced Recovery After abdominal Surgery (IMPAKT ERAS). Response to Br J Anaesth 2026; 136: 1671–72
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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