Amit Garg1, Hardik Pathak2, Maxim V Churyukanov3,4, Rajendra B Uppin5, Tatyana M Slobodin6. 1. Global Medical Affairs, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd, Hyderabad, India. 2. Global Medical Affairs, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd, Hyderabad, India. drhardikpathak@gmail.com. 3. The I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia. 4. The B.V. Petrovsky Russian Scientific Surgery Center, Moscow, Russia. 5. Department of Orthopaedics, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, JN Medical College, Belagavi, India. 6. Shupyk National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kiev, Ukraine.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the various pain assessment tools based on their psychometric properties and ease of use. METHODS: Published articles on psychometric properties of pain tools were accessed and data collected for low back pain (LBP)-specific tools, generic tools, neuropathic LBP tools, tools for cognitively impaired patients, and tools for acute LBP. RESULTS: Among the LBP-specific tools, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) have good construct validity and reliability, and responsiveness over short intervals. Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) gauges only disability and sleep. Among the generic tools, McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) show good responsiveness, but BPI is the only tool validated for LBP. Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) and Short Form-MPQ-2 (SF-MPQ-2) are both reliable tools for neuropathic LBP. For cognitively impaired patients, Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), Abbey Pain Scale (APS), and Doloplus-2 are all reliable tools, but PAINAD has good construct validity. For acute pain, Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA) is reliable and responsive, but presently, unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 are the tools most preferred. CONCLUSION: Based on psychometric properties and ease of use, the best tools for LBP seem to be RMDQ/ODI (among LBP-specific tools), BPI (among generic tools), SF-MPQ-2/NPS (for neuropathic LBP), PAINAD (for cognitively impaired patients), and unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 (for acute pain). Overall, BPI seems to be a tool that can be relied upon the most. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: To study the various pain assessment tools based on their psychometric properties and ease of use. METHODS: Published articles on psychometric properties of pain tools were accessed and data collected for low back pain (LBP)-specific tools, generic tools, neuropathicLBP tools, tools for cognitively impairedpatients, and tools for acute LBP. RESULTS: Among the LBP-specific tools, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) have good construct validity and reliability, and responsiveness over short intervals. Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) gauges only disability and sleep. Among the generic tools, McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) show good responsiveness, but BPI is the only tool validated for LBP. Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) and Short Form-MPQ-2 (SF-MPQ-2) are both reliable tools for neuropathicLBP. For cognitively impairedpatients, Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), Abbey Pain Scale (APS), and Doloplus-2 are all reliable tools, but PAINAD has good construct validity. For acute pain, Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA) is reliable and responsive, but presently, unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 are the tools most preferred. CONCLUSION: Based on psychometric properties and ease of use, the best tools for LBP seem to be RMDQ/ODI (among LBP-specific tools), BPI (among generic tools), SF-MPQ-2/NPS (for neuropathicLBP), PAINAD (for cognitively impairedpatients), and unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 (for acute pain). Overall, BPI seems to be a tool that can be relied upon the most. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Entities:
Keywords:
BPI; Low back pain tools; ODI; Psychometric properties; RMDQ
Authors: Jens R Chapman; Daniel C Norvell; Jeffrey T Hermsmeyer; Richard J Bransford; John DeVine; Matthew J McGirt; Michael J Lee Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: San Keller; Carla M Bann; Sheri L Dodd; Jeff Schein; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: J A Kopec; J M Esdaile; M Abrahamowicz; L Abenhaim; S Wood-Dauphinee; D L Lamping; J I Williams Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Barbara Resnick; Marie Boltz; Elizabeth Galik; Ashley Kuzmik; Jeanette Ellis; Chris Wells; Shijun Zhu Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Barbara Resnick; Kimberly Van Haitsma; Ann Kolanowski; Elizabeth Galik; Marie Boltz; Jeanette Ellis; Liza Behrens; Karen Eshraghi; Cynthia L Renn; Susan G Dorsey Journal: Front Pain Res (Lausanne) Date: 2021-12-02
Authors: Katja Ryynänen; Petteri Oura; Anna-Sofia Simula; Riikka Holopainen; Maija Paukkunen; Mikko Lausmaa; Jouko Remes; Neill Booth; Antti Malmivaara; Jaro Karppinen Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Diego Miñambres-Martín; Patricia Martín-Casas; Ibai López-de-Uralde-Villanueva; César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas; Juan Antonio Valera-Calero; Gustavo Plaza-Manzano Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 3.390