Literature DB >> 14659527

Agreement between percentage pain reductions calculated from numeric rating scores of pain intensity and those reported by patients with acute or cancer pain.

Soledad M Cepeda1, Juan M Africano, Rodolfo Polo, Ramiro Alcala, Daniel B Carr.   

Abstract

The use of percentage pain reduction is increasingly used to evaluate the effectiveness of pain treatments, but the degree of agreement between calculated percentage pain reduction (CPPR) as calculated from pre- and post-treatment levels of pain intensity and those reported directly by patients is unknown. Lack of agreement between these two measures could lead to errors in the determination of treatment effectiveness. We aimed to determine the agreement between CPPR and patient-reported percentage pain reduction (PRPPR). Patients with acute or cancer pain were asked to rate their pain intensity on a 0-10 verbal numerical rating scale (NRS) and to estimate the percent pain reduction from baseline pain after analgesic administration. They then received analgesics every 10 min until pain intensity declined to 4/10 or less. To evaluate agreement between CPPR and PRPPR, we computed the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), which measures both accuracy and precision, and estimated the 95% limits of agreement for the differences between these two measures. 761 adult patients were enrolled. Female, healthy patients with acute pain of severe intensity and high levels of education predominated in the sample. The mean difference between CPPR and PRPPR was -2.6% (95% limits of agreement -12 to 17%). The CCC was 0.56 (accuracy was 0.9 and precision was 0.6). Although CPPR appeared to underestimate PRPPR in the higher range, this trend was not clinically important. The agreement between percentage pain reductions calculated from NRS scores and those estimated by patients did not vary according to gender or age. The good overall agreement between percentage pain reductions calculated from NRS scores and those estimated by patients suggests that these indices may be used interchangeably. The findings of this study extend existing patient-centered pain research and may be applied for the evaluation and comparison of pain treatments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14659527     DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2003.09.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  14 in total

1.  Advances in clinical research methodology for pain clinical trials.

Authors:  John T Farrar
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 53.440

2.  Variation on a technique for the intra-muscular insertion of nerve endings to minimise neuropathic and residual pain in lower limb amputees: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Victor Lu; Andrew Zhou; Matija Krkovic
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2022-05-25

3.  Comparison of numerical and verbal rating scales to measure pain exacerbations in patients with chronic cancer pain.

Authors:  Cinzia Brunelli; Ernesto Zecca; Cinzia Martini; Tiziana Campa; Elena Fagnoni; Michela Bagnasco; Luigi Lanata; Augusto Caraceni
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2010-04-22       Impact factor: 3.186

4.  Individual difference variables and the effects of progressive muscle relaxation and analgesic imagery interventions on cancer pain.

Authors:  Kristine L Kwekkeboom; Britt Wanta; Molly Bumpus
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2008-05-27       Impact factor: 3.612

5.  Ulysses: the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary cognitive behavioural pain management programme-an 8-year review.

Authors:  B M Fullen; C Blake; S Horan; V Kelley; O Spencer; C K Power
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 1.568

6.  Pain point system scale (PPSS): a method for postoperative pain estimation in retrospective studies.

Authors:  Anastasia Gkotsi; Dimosthenis Petsas; Vasilios Sakalis; Asterios Fotas; Argyrios Triantafyllidis; Ioannis Vouros; Evangelos Saridakis; Georgios Salpiggidis; Athanasios Papathanasiou
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 3.133

7.  Gender differences in pain levels before and after treatment: a prospective outcomes study on 3,900 Swiss patients with musculoskeletal complaints.

Authors:  Cynthia K Peterson; B Kim Humphreys; Jürg Hodler; Christian W A Pfirrmann
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Quantitative-qualitative analyses of patient-reported pain response after palliative radiation therapy.

Authors:  Diana D Shi; Tracy A Balboni; Monica S Krishnan; Alexander Spektor; Mai Anh Huynh; Ron Y Shiloh; Sonia Skamene; Cierra Zaslowe-Dude; Lauren M Hertan
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 3.359

9.  Minimal Pain Decrease Between 2 and 4 Weeks After Nonoperative Management of a Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fracture Is Associated with a High Risk of Symptomatic Nonunion.

Authors:  Andreas H Qvist; Michael T Væsel; Carsten M Jensen; Thomas Jakobsen; Steen L Jensen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 10.  Evaluating and monitoring analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit.

Authors:  Curtis N Sessler; Mary Jo Grap; Michael Ae Ramsay
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 9.097

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.