A comparison of pain measures used with patients with Fibromyalgia.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A comparison of pain measures used with patients with Fibromyalgia. Bigatti, S. M., & Cronan, T. A. (2002). Journal of Nursing Measurement, 10(1), 5–13. Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a painful and debilitating chronic condition of unknown etiology that primarily affects the musculoskeletal system of women and persons over age 40. Its dominant features include pain, fatigue, stiffness, disrupted sleep patterns, irritable bowel syndrome, anxiety, and depression (Bennett, 1996). The effect of these symptoms can lead to reduced functioning and disability. The diagnosis is often difficult and frustrating for patients and healthcare providers because there is no generally accepted biologic marker for FMS and the diverse symptoms require a long process of excluding other disorders. Because there is no cure, the focus is placed on managing symptoms, especially pain. Pain is the main complaint and, thus, the main treatment concern. The purpose of the study was to evaluate instruments used to assess pain and determine which was most useful in terms of validity, ease of administration, and scoring. In all, six scales were used: three measured pain and three measured related aspects of well-being. The pain scales were: (1) McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), widely used to measure pain in chronic pain populations and its three subcales: the Pain Rating Index (PRI), a measure of the sensory qualities and cognitive-affective characteristics of pain perception; the Present Pain Index (PPI), a measure of pain intensity; and the Number of Words Chosen Index (NWC), where participants select a word from each category only when they find a word that describes their pain, and the number of words subjects choose is used as a measure of the perceived pain intensity; (2) Manual Tender Point Exam (TPE), where participants are asked how much pain (on a scale from 1 to 10) they feel when the examiner manually applies 4 kg of pressure to each of 18 possible sites; and (3) Visual Analog Scale (VAS), a widely used pain evaluation instrument based on a straight line (10 cm long), scaled from 0 to 100, on which the patient marks the intensity of his or her pain. Other instruments included: (1) Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, with its three subscales (pain, functions, and symptoms), which measures perceived self-efficacy; 2) Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, which measures physical, psychological, social, and global well-being; and 3) Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) used to measure various aspects of sleep quality. The idiopathic chronic pain of patients with FMS has a strong psychological component. The VAS showed the highest correlations with measures of pain, fatigue, and stiffness. The VAS also has the advantage of being quick, concise, and easy to administer and score. Participants in the study felt comfortable and competent in indicating their pain on the VAS. However, a few words of caution must be added. The line must be free of marks that could possibly imply intervals of some sort, and the choice of words used for the anchors could sway where on the line the individual marks their pain.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».