The NIH Pain Common Data Elements: A Great Start but a Long Way to the Finish Line.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1093/pm/pnae110
Meredith C B Adams, Afton L Hassett, Daniel J Clauw, Robert W Hurley
{"title":"The NIH Pain Common Data Elements: A Great Start but a Long Way to the Finish Line.","authors":"Meredith C B Adams, Afton L Hassett, Daniel J Clauw, Robert W Hurley","doi":"10.1093/pm/pnae110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The NIH Pain Common Data Elements (CDEs) provide a standardized framework for pain research, but their implementation and interpretation present challenges.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review the NIH CDE Program's selected pain domains, provide best practices for implementing required questions, and offer a checklist for appropriate CDE use in clinical trials and secondary data analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This work analyzed the ten core pain research domains selected by the NIH CDE Program and discuss their limitations and considerations for use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The manuscript provides an overview of the ten core pain research domains, including pain intensity, interference, physical function, sleep, catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, global impression of change, substance use screening, and quality of life. It offers sample scenarios for implementing required questions and presents a checklist to guide researchers in using pain CDEs effectively for clinical trials and secondary data analysis.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Key challenges identified include contextual variability, lack of validation across all pain conditions and populations, and potential misuse or misinterpretation of measures. This work proposes solutions such as supplementary measures, context-specific guidance, comprehensive training programs, and ongoing refinement of the CDE framework.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While NIH Pain CDEs are valuable tools for standardizing pain assessment in research, addressing challenges in their implementation and interpretation is crucial for improving the consistency, validity, and interpretability of pain research data, ultimately advancing the field and enhancing patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":19744,"journal":{"name":"Pain Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnae110","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The NIH Pain Common Data Elements (CDEs) provide a standardized framework for pain research, but their implementation and interpretation present challenges.

Objectives: To review the NIH CDE Program's selected pain domains, provide best practices for implementing required questions, and offer a checklist for appropriate CDE use in clinical trials and secondary data analysis.

Methods: This work analyzed the ten core pain research domains selected by the NIH CDE Program and discuss their limitations and considerations for use.

Results: The manuscript provides an overview of the ten core pain research domains, including pain intensity, interference, physical function, sleep, catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, global impression of change, substance use screening, and quality of life. It offers sample scenarios for implementing required questions and presents a checklist to guide researchers in using pain CDEs effectively for clinical trials and secondary data analysis.

Discussion: Key challenges identified include contextual variability, lack of validation across all pain conditions and populations, and potential misuse or misinterpretation of measures. This work proposes solutions such as supplementary measures, context-specific guidance, comprehensive training programs, and ongoing refinement of the CDE framework.

Conclusion: While NIH Pain CDEs are valuable tools for standardizing pain assessment in research, addressing challenges in their implementation and interpretation is crucial for improving the consistency, validity, and interpretability of pain research data, ultimately advancing the field and enhancing patient care.

美国国立卫生研究院疼痛通用数据元素:良好的开端,但距离终点还有很长的路要走。
背景:美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)疼痛通用数据元素(CDE)为疼痛研究提供了一个标准化框架,但其实施和解释却面临挑战:回顾美国国立卫生研究院 CDE 计划选定的疼痛领域,提供实施所需问题的最佳实践,并提供一份在临床试验和二次数据分析中适当使用 CDE 的核对表:这项工作分析了美国国立卫生研究院 CDE 计划选定的十个核心疼痛研究领域,并讨论了其局限性和使用时的注意事项:手稿概述了十个核心疼痛研究领域,包括疼痛强度、干扰、身体功能、睡眠、灾难化、抑郁、焦虑、总体变化印象、药物使用筛查和生活质量。该报告提供了实施所需问题的示例方案,并提供了一份核对表,以指导研究人员在临床试验和二次数据分析中有效使用疼痛 CDE:讨论:已确定的主要挑战包括环境的可变性、缺乏对所有疼痛状况和人群的验证,以及对测量方法的潜在误用或误解。这项工作提出了一些解决方案,如补充措施、针对具体情况的指导、综合培训计划以及 CDE 框架的不断完善:尽管 NIH 疼痛 CDE 是研究中标准化疼痛评估的宝贵工具,但解决其实施和解释中的挑战对于提高疼痛研究数据的一致性、有效性和可解释性至关重要,最终将推动该领域的发展并加强对患者的护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Medicine
Pain Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
3.20%
发文量
187
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Pain Medicine is a multi-disciplinary journal dedicated to pain clinicians, educators and researchers with an interest in pain from various medical specialties such as pain medicine, anaesthesiology, family practice, internal medicine, neurology, neurological surgery, orthopaedic spine surgery, psychiatry, and rehabilitation medicine as well as related health disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, nursing, nurse practitioner, physical therapy, and integrative health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信