Santiago Perez-Lloret1, Daniel Ciampi de Andrade2,3,4, Kelly E Lyons5, Carmen Rodríguez-Blázquez6, Kallol Ray Chaudhuri7,8, Guenther Deuschl9, Girgio Cruccu10, Cristina Sampaio11, Christopher G Goetz12, Anette Schrag13, Pablo Martinez-Martin6, Glenn Stebbins12. 1. Institute of Cardiology Research University of Buenos Aires, National Research Council (CONICET-ININCA) Buenos Aires Argentina. 2. Centro de Dor Departamento de Neurologia da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo São Paulo Brazil. 3. Instituto do Câncer de São Paulo Octavio Frias de Oliveira São Paulo Brazil. 4. Hospital das Clínicas Universidade de São Paulo São Paulo Brazil. 5. University of Kansas Medical Center Kansas City Kansas USA. 6. Carlos III Institute of Health National Centre of Epidemiology and Centre for Networked Biomedical Research on Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIBERNED) Madrid Spain. 7. National Parkinson Foundation International Center of Excellence King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust London United Kingdom. 8. King's College London London United Kingdom. 9. Department of Neurology Christian-Albrechts University Kiel Germany. 10. Department of Neurology and Psychiatry Sapienza University Rome Italy. 11. CHDI Management/CHDI Foundation Princeton New Jersey USA. 12. Department of Neurological Sciences Rush University Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA. 13. Department of Clinical Neurosciences UCL Institute of Neurology London United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed at critically appraising the clinimetric properties of existing pain scales or questionnaires and to give recommendations for their use in Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Clinimetric properties of pain scales used in PD were systematically evaluated. A scale was classified as 'recommended' if was used in PD, showed adequate clinimetric properties, and had been used by investigators other than the original developers; as 'suggested' if it was used in PD and fulfilled only one other criterion; and as 'listed' if it was used in PD but did not meet the other criteria. Only scales rating pain intensity or for syndromic classification were assessed. RESULTS: Eleven of the 34 scales initially considered fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among the scales rating pain intensity, the "Brief Pain Inventory short form," "McGill Pain Questionnaire short and long forms," "Neuropathic Pain Symptoms Inventory," "11-point Numeric Rating Scale," "10-cm Visual Analog Scale," and "Pain-O-Meter" were "recommended with caution" because of lack of clinimetric data in PD, whereas the "King's PD Pain Scale" was "recommended." Among scales for pain syndromic classification, the "DN4" was "recommended with caution" because of lack of clinimetric data in PD; the "Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs," "Pain-DETECT," and the "King's PD Pain Scale" were "suggested." CONCLUSIONS: King's PD pain scale can be recommended for the assessment of pain intensity in PD. Syndromic classification of pain in PD may be achieved by the DN4, but clinimetric data in PD are needed for this scale.
BACKGROUND: We aimed at critically appraising the clinimetric properties of existing pain scales or questionnaires and to give recommendations for their use in Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Clinimetric properties of pain scales used in PD were systematically evaluated. A scale was classified as 'recommended' if was used in PD, showed adequate clinimetric properties, and had been used by investigators other than the original developers; as 'suggested' if it was used in PD and fulfilled only one other criterion; and as 'listed' if it was used in PD but did not meet the other criteria. Only scales rating pain intensity or for syndromic classification were assessed. RESULTS: Eleven of the 34 scales initially considered fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among the scales rating pain intensity, the "Brief Pain Inventory short form," "McGill Pain Questionnaire short and long forms," "Neuropathic Pain Symptoms Inventory," "11-point Numeric Rating Scale," "10-cm Visual Analog Scale," and "Pain-O-Meter" were "recommended with caution" because of lack of clinimetric data in PD, whereas the "King's PD Pain Scale" was "recommended." Among scales for pain syndromic classification, the "DN4" was "recommended with caution" because of lack of clinimetric data in PD; the "Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs," "Pain-DETECT," and the "King's PD Pain Scale" were "suggested." CONCLUSIONS: King's PD pain scale can be recommended for the assessment of pain intensity in PD. Syndromic classification of pain in PD may be achieved by the DN4, but clinimetric data in PD are needed for this scale.
Authors: Daniel Ciampi de Andrade; Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur; Ricardo Galhardoni; Karine S L Ferreira; Anderson Rodrigues Brandão Paiva; Edson Bor-Seng-Shu; Luciana Alvarenga; Martin L Myczkowski; Marco Antonio Marcolin; Silvia R D T de Siqueira; Erich Fonoff; Egberto Reis Barbosa; Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira Journal: Pain Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: H Breivik; P C Borchgrevink; S M Allen; L A Rosseland; L Romundstad; E K Breivik Hals; G Kvarstein; A Stubhaug Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Monty A Silverdale; Christopher Kobylecki; Lewis Kass-Iliyya; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Michael Lawton; Sarah Cotterill; K Ray Chaudhuri; Huw Morris; Fahd Baig; Nigel Williams; Leon Hubbard; Michele T Hu; Donald G Grosset Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Christian Geroin; Carlo Alberto Artusi; Marialuisa Gandolfi; Elisabetta Zanolin; Roberto Ceravolo; Marianna Capecci; Elisa Andrenelli; Maria Gabriella Ceravolo; Laura Bonanni; Marco Onofrj; Roberta Telese; Giulia Bellavita; Mauro Catalan; Paolo Manganotti; Sonia Mazzucchi; Sara Giannoni; Laura Vacca; Fabrizio Stocchi; Miriam Casali; Cristian Falup-Pecurariu; Maurizio Zibetti; Alfonso Fasano; Leonardo Lopiano; Michele Tinazzi Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 4.003