Quality of Pain Intensity Assessment Reporting: ACTTION Systematic Review and Recommendations

JOURNAL OF PAIN

卷:16

Review

Smith, Shannon M.¹  Hunsinger, Matthew⁶  McKeown, Andrew¹  Parkhurst, Melissa²  Allen, Robert⁷  Kopko, Stephen⁸  Lu, Yun⁹  Wilson, Hilary D.¹⁰  Burke, Laurie B.¹¹  Desjardins, Paul¹²  McDermott, Michael P.^3,4,5  Rappaport, Bob A.¹³  Turk, Dennis C.¹⁴  Dworkin, Robert H.^1,4,5 

[1] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Dept Anesthesiol, Rochester, NY 14642 USA

[2] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Dept Psychiat, Rochester, NY 14642 USA

[3] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Dept Biostat & Computat Biol, Rochester, NY 14642 USA

[4] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Dept Neurol, Rochester, NY 14642 USA

[5] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Ctr Human Expt Therapeut, Rochester, NY 14642 USA

[6] Univ Pacific, Sch Profess Psychol, Hillsboro, OR USA

[7] Ctr Xion Corp, Baltimore, MD USA

[8] Clin Data Interchange Stand Consortium, Austin, TX USA

[9] KAI Res Inc, Rockville, MD USA

[10] Evidera, Seattle, WA USA

[11] LORA Grp LLC, Royal Oak, MI USA

[12] Desjardins Associates, Maplewood, NJ USA

[13] US FDA, Ctr Drug Evaluat & Res, Silver Spring, MD USA

[14] Univ Washington, Dept Anesthesiol & Pain Med, Seattle, WA 98195 USA

关键词: Pain intensity;    pain measurement;    pain research;   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.004

来源: Elsevier

【 摘 要 】

Pain intensity assessments are used widely in human pain research, and their transparent reporting is crucial to interpreting study results. In this systematic review, we examined reporting of human pain intensity assessments and related elements (eg, administration frequency, time period assessed, type of pain) in all empirical pain studies with adult participants in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain) between January 2011 and July 2012. Of the 262 articles identified, close to one-quarter (24%) ambiguously reported the pain intensity assessment. Elements related to the pain intensity assessment were frequently not reported: 31% did not identify the time period participants were asked to rate, 43% failed to report the type of pain intensity rated, and 58% did not report the specific location or pain condition rated. No differences were observed between randomized clinical trials and experimental (eg, studies involving experimental manipulation without random group assignment and blinding) and observational studies in reporting quality. The ability to understand study results, and to compare results between studies, is compromised when pain intensity assessments are not fully reported. Recommendations are presented regarding key details for investigators to consider when conducting and reporting pain intensity assessments in human adults. Perspective: This systematic review demonstrates that publications of pain research often incompletely report pain intensity assessments and their details (eg, administration frequency, type of pain). Failure to fully report details of pain intensity assessments creates ambiguity in interpreting research results. Recommendations are proposed to increase transparent reporting. (C) 2015 by the American Pain Society

【 授权许可】

Free