评估肌肉骨骼疼痛或类风湿性疾病患者恢复力的患者报告结果指标的心理测量特性:基于COSMIN的系统综述。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Clinical Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1097/AJP.0000000000001162
Dayana Patricia Rosa, Marc-Olivier Dubé, Jean-Sébastien Roy
{"title":"评估肌肉骨骼疼痛或类风湿性疾病患者恢复力的患者报告结果指标的心理测量特性:基于COSMIN的系统综述。","authors":"Dayana Patricia Rosa, Marc-Olivier Dubé, Jean-Sébastien Roy","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess resilience in individuals with musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were searched. Studies assessing any measurement property in the target populations were included. Two reviewers independently screened all studies and assessed the risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist. Thereafter, each measurement property of each PROM was classified as sufficient, insufficient, or inconsistent based on the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four families of PROMs [Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS); Resilience Scale (RS-18); Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2); and Pain Resilience Scale (PRS-14 and PRS-12)] were identified from the 9 included studies. Even if no PROM showed sufficient evidence for all measurement properties, the PRS and CD-RISC had the most properties evaluated and showed the best measurement properties, although responsiveness still needs to be assessed for both PROMs. Both PROMs showed good levels of reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation 0.61 to 0.8) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.70). Minimal detectable change values were 24.5% for PRS and between 4.7% and 29.8% for CD-RISC.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Although BRCS, RS-18, CD-RISC, and PRS have been used to evaluate resilience in individuals with musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions, the current evidence only supports the use of PRS and CD-RISC in this population. Further methodological studies are therefore needed and should prioritize the assessment of reliability and responsiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"695-706"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric Properties of Patient-reported Outcome Measures to Assess Resilience in Individuals with Musculoskeletal Pain or Rheumatic Conditions: A COSMIN-based Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Dayana Patricia Rosa, Marc-Olivier Dubé, Jean-Sébastien Roy\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess resilience in individuals with musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were searched. Studies assessing any measurement property in the target populations were included. Two reviewers independently screened all studies and assessed the risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist. Thereafter, each measurement property of each PROM was classified as sufficient, insufficient, or inconsistent based on the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four families of PROMs [Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS); Resilience Scale (RS-18); Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2); and Pain Resilience Scale (PRS-14 and PRS-12)] were identified from the 9 included studies. Even if no PROM showed sufficient evidence for all measurement properties, the PRS and CD-RISC had the most properties evaluated and showed the best measurement properties, although responsiveness still needs to be assessed for both PROMs. Both PROMs showed good levels of reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation 0.61 to 0.8) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.70). Minimal detectable change values were 24.5% for PRS and between 4.7% and 29.8% for CD-RISC.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Although BRCS, RS-18, CD-RISC, and PRS have been used to evaluate resilience in individuals with musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions, the current evidence only supports the use of PRS and CD-RISC in this population. Further methodological studies are therefore needed and should prioritize the assessment of reliability and responsiveness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"695-706\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001162\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001162","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本系统综述的目的是全面概述用于评估肌肉骨骼和风湿病患者恢复力的患者报告结果测量(PROM)的测量特性。方法:检索MEDLINE、CINAHL、PsycINFO、Web of Science四个电子数据库。包括评估目标人群中任何测量特性的研究。两名评审员独立筛选了所有研究,并使用COSMIN检查表评估了偏倚风险。此后,根据良好测量特性的COSMIN标准,将每个PROM的每个测量特性分类为充分、不充分或不一致。结果:从9项纳入的研究中确定了4个PROM家族(简要弹性应对量表[BRCS];弹性量表[RS-18];康纳·戴维森弹性量表[CDRISC-10和CD-RISC-2];疼痛弹性量表[PRS-14和PRS-12])。即使没有PROM显示出所有测量性能的充分证据,PRS和CD-RISC也具有最多的性能评估,并显示出最佳的测量性能;尽管仍然需要对两种PROM的响应性进行评估。两种PROM均显示出良好的可靠性(组内系数相关性0.61至0.8)和良好的内部一致性(Cronbachα≥0.70)。PRS的最小可检测变化值为24.5%,CD-RISC的最小检测变化值在4.7%至29.8%之间。讨论:尽管BRCS、RS-18、CD-RISC或PRS已用于评估肌肉骨骼和风湿性疾病患者的恢复力,但目前的证据仅支持在该人群中使用PRS或CD-RISC。因此,需要进行进一步的方法研究,并应优先评估可靠性和反应性。
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
Psychometric Properties of Patient-reported Outcome Measures to Assess Resilience in Individuals with Musculoskeletal Pain or Rheumatic Conditions: A COSMIN-based Systematic Review.

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess resilience in individuals with musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions.

Methods: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were searched. Studies assessing any measurement property in the target populations were included. Two reviewers independently screened all studies and assessed the risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist. Thereafter, each measurement property of each PROM was classified as sufficient, insufficient, or inconsistent based on the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.

Results: Four families of PROMs [Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS); Resilience Scale (RS-18); Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2); and Pain Resilience Scale (PRS-14 and PRS-12)] were identified from the 9 included studies. Even if no PROM showed sufficient evidence for all measurement properties, the PRS and CD-RISC had the most properties evaluated and showed the best measurement properties, although responsiveness still needs to be assessed for both PROMs. Both PROMs showed good levels of reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation 0.61 to 0.8) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.70). Minimal detectable change values were 24.5% for PRS and between 4.7% and 29.8% for CD-RISC.

Discussion: Although BRCS, RS-18, CD-RISC, and PRS have been used to evaluate resilience in individuals with musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions, the current evidence only supports the use of PRS and CD-RISC in this population. Further methodological studies are therefore needed and should prioritize the assessment of reliability and responsiveness.

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
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of Perineural Dexmedetomidine in Ultrasound-guided Interscalene Block on Rebound Pain After Shoulder Arthroscopy. Occurrence of Opioid-Related Neurocognitive Symptoms Associated With Long-term Opioid Therapy. Study on the Effectiveness of Ultrasound-guided Pulsed Radiofrequency Therapy for Shoulder Pain Caused by Trigger Points. Assessment of Relationship Between Dietary Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Behavioral Factors, Physical Measurement, and Risk of Migraine: A Univariable and Multivariable Mendelian Randomization Study. Comparing Analgesic Efficacies of Combined Fascial Plane Blocks for Postoperative Pain Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
×
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