Meredith C B Adams, Afton L Hassett, Daniel J Clauw, Robert W Hurley
{"title":"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。","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":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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}
The NIH Pain Common Data Elements: A Great Start but a Long Way to the Finish Line.
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.
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.