The Sensation and Pain Rating Scale: easy to use, clear to interpret, and responsive to clinical change.
The Sensation and Pain Rating Scale: easy to use, clear to interpret, and responsive to clinical change.
复制标题
感觉和疼痛评定量表：易于使用、解释清晰、对临床变化敏感。
DOI：
10.1101/2023.09.08.23295128
复制
发表时间：
2024
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Moseley,GLorimer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Madden,VictoriaJ;Kamerman,Peter;Leake,HayleyB;Catley,MarkJ;Heathcote,LaurenC;Moseley,GLorimer
背景感觉和疼痛评定量表（SPARS）允许对非疼痛和疼痛感知进行评定。虽然它在实验环境中表现良好，但其临床实用性未经测试。这种前瞻性的，重复测量的研究混合定性和定量的方法来检查的实用性和性能的SPARS在临床上，并将其与广泛使用的11点NRS pain.MethodsPeople提出的门诊物理治疗（n = 121）提供评级的SPARS和NRS在第一次咨询，之前和之后假和积极的临床干预，并在后续咨询。临床医生（n = 9）使用Likert类型量表和自由文本报告每个量表的可用性和可解释性，并使用自由文本回答其他问题。每种数据类型最初分别进行分析：定量数据可视化和ES II指标被用来估计SPARS内部响应;定性数据进行了分析与自反归纳的主题方法。数据类型，然后整合三角测量和complementarity.ResultsThe SPARS是深受欢迎，并认为易于使用，经过初步熟悉。临床医生更喜欢SPARS而不是NRS，以获得解释的清晰度和评定者间的可靠性。SPARS对变化的敏感性良好（ESII=0.9; 95%CI：0.75-1.10）。更大的感知范围的SPARS被认为是特别相关的后期阶段的恢复，当疼痛可能会消退到不适，仍然值得临床attention.ConclusionThe SPARS是一个很有前途的工具，用于评估患者的认知，从临床医生的强烈认可，其清晰度和上级感知范围。
BackgroundThe Sensation and Pain Rating Scale (SPARS) allows rating of non-painful as well as painful percepts. While it performs well in the experimental context, its clinical utility is untested. This prospective, repeated-measures study mixed qualitative and quantitative methods to examine the utility and performance of the SPARS in a clinical context, and to compare it with the widely used 11-point NRS for pain.MethodsPeople presenting for outpatient physiotherapy (n = 121) provided ratings on the SPARS and NRS at first consultation, before and after sham and active clinical interventions, and at follow-up consultation. Clinicians (n = 9) reported each scale’s usability and interpretability using Likert-type scales and free text, and answered additional questions with free text. Each data type was initially analysed separately: quantitative data were visualised and the ES II metric was used to estimate SPARS internal responsiveness; qualitative data were analysed with a reflexive inductive thematic approach. Data types were then integrated for triangulation and complementarity.ResultsThe SPARS was well received and considered easy to use, after initial familiarisation. Clinicians favoured the SPARS over the NRS for clarity of interpretation and inter-rater reliability. SPARS sensitivity to change was good (ESII=0.9; 95%CI: 0.75–1.10). The greater perceptual range of the SPARS was deemed especially relevant in the later phases of recovery, when pain may recede into discomfort that still warrants clinical attention.ConclusionThe SPARS is a promising tool for assessing patient percept, with strong endorsement from clinicians for its clarity and superior perceptual scope.