使用简易床边工具箱(QuantiPain)检测膝骨关节炎患者疼痛促进和抑制机制的改变

IF 3.4 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Pain Reports Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.1097/PR9.0000000000000998
M. Izumi, Yoshihiro Hayashi, Ryota Saito, S. Oda, K. Petersen, L. Arendt-Nielsen, M. Ikeuchi
{"title":"使用简易床边工具箱(QuantiPain)检测膝骨关节炎患者疼痛促进和抑制机制的改变","authors":"M. Izumi, Yoshihiro Hayashi, Ryota Saito, S. Oda, K. Petersen, L. Arendt-Nielsen, M. Ikeuchi","doi":"10.1097/PR9.0000000000000998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. A simple bedside quantitative sensory testing tool kit demonstrated acceptable reliability and assessment validity for detecting altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms in patients with painful osteoarthritis. Abstract Purpose: Altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms have been recognized as an important manifestation in patients with chronic pain, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) can act as a proxy for this process. We have recently developed a simple bedside QST tool kit (QuantiPain) for more clinical use. The purpose of this study was to investigate its test–retest reliability and to evaluate its validity compared with the laboratory-based QST protocols in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: QuantiPain consists of 3 items: “pressure algometer” (for pressure pain thresholds [PPTs]), “pinprick” (for temporal summation of pain [TSP]), and “conditioning clamp” (for conditioned pain modulation [CPM]). In experiment-A, intrarater and interrater test–retest reliabilities were investigated in 21 young healthy subjects by using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In experiment-B, 40 unilateral painful patients with OA and 40 age-matched, healthy control subjects were included to compare the bedside tool kit against the computerized pressure algometry. Results: In experiment-A, excellent to moderate intrarater and interrater reliabilities were achieved in PPT and TSP (ICC: 0.60–0.92) while the agreements of CPM were good to poor (ICC: 0.37–0.80). In experiment-B, localized and widespread decrease of PPT, facilitated TSP, and impaired CPM was found by using the bedside tool kit in patients with OA compared with controls (P < 0.05). The data were significantly correlated with the established laboratory-based tools (R = 0.281–0.848, P < 0.05). Conclusion: QuantiPain demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability and assessment validity with the sensitivity to separate patients with painful OA from controls, which has a potential to create more practical approach for quantifying altered pain mechanisms in clinical settings.","PeriodicalId":52189,"journal":{"name":"Pain Reports","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Detection of altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms in patients with knee osteoarthritis by using a simple bedside tool kit (QuantiPain)\",\"authors\":\"M. Izumi, Yoshihiro Hayashi, Ryota Saito, S. Oda, K. Petersen, L. Arendt-Nielsen, M. Ikeuchi\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PR9.0000000000000998\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. A simple bedside quantitative sensory testing tool kit demonstrated acceptable reliability and assessment validity for detecting altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms in patients with painful osteoarthritis. Abstract Purpose: Altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms have been recognized as an important manifestation in patients with chronic pain, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) can act as a proxy for this process. We have recently developed a simple bedside QST tool kit (QuantiPain) for more clinical use. The purpose of this study was to investigate its test–retest reliability and to evaluate its validity compared with the laboratory-based QST protocols in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: QuantiPain consists of 3 items: “pressure algometer” (for pressure pain thresholds [PPTs]), “pinprick” (for temporal summation of pain [TSP]), and “conditioning clamp” (for conditioned pain modulation [CPM]). In experiment-A, intrarater and interrater test–retest reliabilities were investigated in 21 young healthy subjects by using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In experiment-B, 40 unilateral painful patients with OA and 40 age-matched, healthy control subjects were included to compare the bedside tool kit against the computerized pressure algometry. Results: In experiment-A, excellent to moderate intrarater and interrater reliabilities were achieved in PPT and TSP (ICC: 0.60–0.92) while the agreements of CPM were good to poor (ICC: 0.37–0.80). In experiment-B, localized and widespread decrease of PPT, facilitated TSP, and impaired CPM was found by using the bedside tool kit in patients with OA compared with controls (P < 0.05). The data were significantly correlated with the established laboratory-based tools (R = 0.281–0.848, P < 0.05). Conclusion: QuantiPain demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability and assessment validity with the sensitivity to separate patients with painful OA from controls, which has a potential to create more practical approach for quantifying altered pain mechanisms in clinical settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000998\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000998","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

文本中提供了补充数字内容。一个简单的床边定量感觉测试工具包在检测疼痛性骨关节炎患者疼痛促进和抑制机制改变方面显示出可接受的可靠性和评估有效性。摘要目的:疼痛促进和抑制机制的改变已被认为是慢性疼痛患者的一种重要表现,定量感觉测试(QST)可以作为这一过程的代理。我们最近开发了一种简单的床边QST工具包(QuantiPain),用于更多的临床应用。本研究的目的是调查其测试-再测试的可靠性,并与基于实验室的QST方案相比,评估其在膝骨关节炎(OA)患者中的有效性。方法:QuantiPan由3个项目组成:“压力算法”(用于压力疼痛阈值[PPT])、“针刺”(用于疼痛的时间总和[TSP])和“条件钳”(用于条件疼痛调节[CPM])。在实验A中,使用组间相关系数(ICC)对21名年轻健康受试者的评分者内和评分者间测试-再测试的可靠性进行了调查。在实验B中,包括40名单侧疼痛的OA患者和40名年龄匹配的健康对照受试者,将床边工具包与计算机压力测量法进行比较。结果:在实验A中,PPT和TSP的评分者内和评分者间可靠性从优到中等(ICC:0.60–0.92),而CPM的一致性从好到差(ICC:0.37–0.80)。在实验B中,PPT的局部和广泛降低促进了TSP,与对照组相比,使用床边工具包在OA患者中发现CPM受损(P<0.05)。数据与已建立的实验室工具显著相关(R=0.281–0.848,P<0.05),这有可能创造更实用的方法来量化临床环境中改变的疼痛机制。
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
Detection of altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms in patients with knee osteoarthritis by using a simple bedside tool kit (QuantiPain)
Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. A simple bedside quantitative sensory testing tool kit demonstrated acceptable reliability and assessment validity for detecting altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms in patients with painful osteoarthritis. Abstract Purpose: Altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms have been recognized as an important manifestation in patients with chronic pain, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) can act as a proxy for this process. We have recently developed a simple bedside QST tool kit (QuantiPain) for more clinical use. The purpose of this study was to investigate its test–retest reliability and to evaluate its validity compared with the laboratory-based QST protocols in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: QuantiPain consists of 3 items: “pressure algometer” (for pressure pain thresholds [PPTs]), “pinprick” (for temporal summation of pain [TSP]), and “conditioning clamp” (for conditioned pain modulation [CPM]). In experiment-A, intrarater and interrater test–retest reliabilities were investigated in 21 young healthy subjects by using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In experiment-B, 40 unilateral painful patients with OA and 40 age-matched, healthy control subjects were included to compare the bedside tool kit against the computerized pressure algometry. Results: In experiment-A, excellent to moderate intrarater and interrater reliabilities were achieved in PPT and TSP (ICC: 0.60–0.92) while the agreements of CPM were good to poor (ICC: 0.37–0.80). In experiment-B, localized and widespread decrease of PPT, facilitated TSP, and impaired CPM was found by using the bedside tool kit in patients with OA compared with controls (P < 0.05). The data were significantly correlated with the established laboratory-based tools (R = 0.281–0.848, P < 0.05). Conclusion: QuantiPain demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability and assessment validity with the sensitivity to separate patients with painful OA from controls, which has a potential to create more practical approach for quantifying altered pain mechanisms in clinical settings.
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 Reports
Pain Reports Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Preexisting chronic pain is not associated with moderate-to-severe acute pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study. Why might fears and worries persist after a pain education-grounded multimodal intervention for chronic back pain? A qualitative study. Pain and small fiber pathology in men with fibromyalgia syndrome. Upregulated spinal histone deacetylases induce nociceptive sensitization by inhibiting the GABA system in chronic constriction injury-induced neuropathy in rats. Integrated manual therapies: IASP taskforce viewpoint.
×
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