MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2473113688

Understanding the physical and mental functioning of those with persistent and resolved Complex Regional Pain Syndrome to help inform treatment approaches

2016· article· en· W2473113688 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Candy McCabe, Alison Llewellyn, Yvette Hibberd, Paul M. White, Lindsay Davies, Johan Marinus, R. Perez, Ilona Thomassen, Florian Brunner, Carol Sontheim, Frank Birklein, Andreas Göebel, Richard Haigh, Robyn Connett, Christian Maihöfner, Lone Knudsen, Norman Harden, Andrzej Żyluk, David H. Shulman, Helen Small, François Gobeil, Peter A. Moskovitz

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePain Management and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychosocialComplex regional pain syndromeQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineAnxietyPopulationMental healthChronic painInformed consentPhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatryAlternative medicineNursingEnvironmental health
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background \nPain is bio-psychosocial in nature. Recognising the inter-relationship of physical and psychological factors in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) has clinical implications for treating this often poorly understood chronic pain condition. Whilst there is little evidence suggesting psychosocial factors have a prognostic role in the development of CRPS, research suggests CRPS has significant consequences for patients, such as poor psychological health, poor functional ability and reduced quality of life (QoL). It is also known that anxiety, pain-related fear, and disability in the early stages of CRPS are associated with poorer outcomes in the first year. \nHowever, little is known about how demographic and bio-psychosocial factors may vary and relate to patient-defined recovery and other individual characteristics (including duration of the condition and upper- versus lower-limb CRPS). Understanding self-reported symptoms and psychosocial factors within these contexts may be important in helping healthcare professionals design and evaluate future treatments. \n \nAims \nTo undertake a cross-sectional study, describing the self-reported physical and psychological function of people with CRPS (with varying disease duration), and those who had recovered. Using an international sample to ensure population diversity, to identify variances and/or relationships between recovered and non-recovered populations and condition characteristics (upper/lower limb affected). \n \nMethods \nFollowing ethical and institutional approvals at study sites, potential participants ≥18yrs, who met, or previously met, Budapest CRPS criteria, were identified from 8 country-specific databases (UK, Germany, USA, Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Poland) and sent postal questionnaires (translated from English as required). Consent was implied by return of completed questionnaires. Data collected within countries was anonymised and pooled on a single common database (lead centre Bath). \nSelf-reported data included: patient demographics, limb affected, disease stage (early, intermediate, late, recovered/non-recovered); knowing CRPS type (I or II); date of CRPS onset; trigger (trauma or spontaneous); and symptoms (from a provided list) in the prior 48 hours. \nParticipants also completed: McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ); EQ-5D; Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II); Radboud Skills Questionnaire (RSQ) for upper-limb CRPS; and Measuring Activity Limitations in Walking Questionnaire (WAQ) for lower-limb. Chi-squared, Welch’s t-tests, odds ratios and regression analyses were used to explore the data. \n \nResults \nN=347 participants (80.4% female; mean age=53yrs; 52.7% disease duration ≥ 3yrs. N=310 reported recovery status: 280 (90.3%) non-recovered. \nSelf-reported recovery and number of symptoms were strongly associated (χ2 = 124.94, df = 15, p<.001). There were no associations with demographics, disease duration, trigger, limb affected but positive associations with knowing CRPS type (p < .05) and having caring responsibilities (p < .05). \nNon-recovered participants had lower psychological flexibility/higher avoidance (AAQ-II), higher pain (MPQ) and lower QoL (EQ-5D) (p ≤ .001). \nNon-recovered participants with lower-limb CRPS more frequently reported hyperalgesia, allodynia, hair changes, involuntary muscle movements than those with upper-limb CRPS and had poorer MPQ (p < .01), EQ-5D (p < .05), SF-36 Physical Functioning (p < .001) and Energy/Fatigue (p < .05) scores. \nFunction (RSQ), AAQ-II, and number of symptoms were jointly (p < .001) and individually (p < .05) predictive of EQ-5D scores for non-recovered participants with upper-limb CRPS. \n \nConclusion \nUnresolved CRPS has negative consequences for mental and physical well-being, with people with lower-limb CRPS having the poorest health outcomes. Disease duration and demographic characteristics did not influence health status but a small “recovered” sample (n=30) should be noted. \nLower psychological flexibility/higher avoidance in the non-recovered cohort maybe of relevance for treatment interventions, and supports a multi-disciplinary rehabilitation approach which promotes increased physical function conducted with concurrent psychological support. Education about CRPS and responsibilities for others may support recovery from CRPS.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,057

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0170,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,293
Tête enseignante GPT0,331
Écart entre enseignants0,037 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol)Même sujetPain Management and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207