Approaches used for the Quantification of Pain in Physical Therapy Practices-A Systematic Review

Shahrukh Abbasi, Shahzaib Naseer, S. Farooqui
{"title":"Approaches used for the Quantification of Pain in Physical Therapy Practices-A Systematic Review","authors":"Shahrukh Abbasi, Shahzaib Naseer, S. Farooqui","doi":"10.29052/2412-3188.v9.i1.2022.39-50","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: This study aimed to determine the most common pain intensity assessment tool that has been used in different physical therapy management-based studies as a primary outcome measure for the quantification of pain. \nMethodology: The electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, PEDro, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies from January 2015 to September 2021 by using keywords like 'pain,' 'pain intensity,' 'Visual Analogue Scale,' and 'Numeric Pain Rating Scale.' Randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies in which pain management is considered an outcome measure published in the English language were included. In contrast, Non-RCTs were excluded that were based on pain management strategies other than physical therapy or conducted in inpatient department or based on approaches of telerehab. \nResults: The findings revealed that n=1,292 participants were given different physical therapy interventions in which n=792 (61.3%) were evaluated for their pain on VAS, followed by n=453 (35%) on NPRS and n=169 (13%) on PPT of the total population. \nConclusion: VAS was the most frequently used tool to determine the patient's perception of pain, followed by NPRS and McGill Pain Questionnaire.","PeriodicalId":34185,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Psychophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Psychophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29052/2412-3188.v9.i1.2022.39-50","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to determine the most common pain intensity assessment tool that has been used in different physical therapy management-based studies as a primary outcome measure for the quantification of pain. Methodology: The electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, PEDro, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies from January 2015 to September 2021 by using keywords like 'pain,' 'pain intensity,' 'Visual Analogue Scale,' and 'Numeric Pain Rating Scale.' Randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies in which pain management is considered an outcome measure published in the English language were included. In contrast, Non-RCTs were excluded that were based on pain management strategies other than physical therapy or conducted in inpatient department or based on approaches of telerehab. Results: The findings revealed that n=1,292 participants were given different physical therapy interventions in which n=792 (61.3%) were evaluated for their pain on VAS, followed by n=453 (35%) on NPRS and n=169 (13%) on PPT of the total population. Conclusion: VAS was the most frequently used tool to determine the patient's perception of pain, followed by NPRS and McGill Pain Questionnaire.
物理治疗实践中疼痛量化的方法——系统综述
背景:本研究旨在确定在不同的基于物理治疗管理的研究中使用的最常见的疼痛强度评估工具,作为量化疼痛的主要结果指标。方法:检索PubMed、Google Scholar、PEDro和Cochrane Library等电子数据库,使用“疼痛”、“疼痛强度”、“视觉模拟量表”和“数字疼痛评定量表”等关键词,确定2015年1月至2021年9月的相关研究包括以英语发表的随机对照试验或准实验研究,其中疼痛管理被视为一种结果衡量标准。相反,基于物理治疗以外的疼痛管理策略、在住院部进行或基于远程康复方法的非随机对照试验被排除在外。结果:研究结果显示,1292名参与者接受了不同的物理治疗干预,其中792名(61.3%)在VAS上评估了他们的疼痛,其次是453名(35%)在NPRS上和169名(13%)在PPT上。结论:VAS是确定患者疼痛感知的最常用工具,其次是NPRS和McGill疼痛问卷。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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