全膝关节置换术后简短疼痛量表最小临床重要差异的定量分析。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Pain Research Pub Date : 2025-02-20 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JPR.S501219
Shunxing Wang, Shuxin Yao, Peng Xiao, Lei Shang, Chao Xu, Jianbing Ma
{"title":"全膝关节置换术后简短疼痛量表最小临床重要差异的定量分析。","authors":"Shunxing Wang, Shuxin Yao, Peng Xiao, Lei Shang, Chao Xu, Jianbing Ma","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S501219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Research on the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) following Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is limited. This study addresses this gap by determining the MCID of the BPI for patients undergoing primary TKA.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This study was designed to quantitatively determine the MCID of the BPI for patients undergoing primary TKA. A prospective cohort of 288 patients was evaluated, with the BPI administered both preoperatively and at a one-year follow-up. The MCID was calculated using two primary approaches: the anchor-based method, considered the gold standard, and the distribution-based method. Additionally, this study explored various calculation approaches within the distribution-based framework, benchmarking them against the anchor-based method. The distribution-based methods included calculations based on Standard Deviation (SD), Effect Size (ES), Standardized Response Mean (SRM), and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM). All statistical calculations were performed using established formulas.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The anchor-based method determined the MCID for BPI pain severity to be 3.9 points, the pain interference dimension to be 5.8 points, and the total score to be 9.7 points. Comparisons with the gold standard highlighted the 0.65ES, 1.96SEM, and 0.5SRM methods as the most suitable approaches for distribution-based MCID estimation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The MCID for BPI in TKA patients was established using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. When anchor-based determination is impractical, the distribution-based methods-0.65ES, 1.96SEM, and 0.5SRM-are recommended for MCID calculation.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"803-813"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11849426/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative Analysis of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference in the Brief Pain Inventory After Total Knee Arthroplasty.\",\"authors\":\"Shunxing Wang, Shuxin Yao, Peng Xiao, Lei Shang, Chao Xu, Jianbing Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JPR.S501219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Research on the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) following Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is limited. This study addresses this gap by determining the MCID of the BPI for patients undergoing primary TKA.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This study was designed to quantitatively determine the MCID of the BPI for patients undergoing primary TKA. A prospective cohort of 288 patients was evaluated, with the BPI administered both preoperatively and at a one-year follow-up. The MCID was calculated using two primary approaches: the anchor-based method, considered the gold standard, and the distribution-based method. Additionally, this study explored various calculation approaches within the distribution-based framework, benchmarking them against the anchor-based method. The distribution-based methods included calculations based on Standard Deviation (SD), Effect Size (ES), Standardized Response Mean (SRM), and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM). All statistical calculations were performed using established formulas.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The anchor-based method determined the MCID for BPI pain severity to be 3.9 points, the pain interference dimension to be 5.8 points, and the total score to be 9.7 points. Comparisons with the gold standard highlighted the 0.65ES, 1.96SEM, and 0.5SRM methods as the most suitable approaches for distribution-based MCID estimation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The MCID for BPI in TKA patients was established using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. When anchor-based determination is impractical, the distribution-based methods-0.65ES, 1.96SEM, and 0.5SRM-are recommended for MCID calculation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"803-813\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11849426/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S501219\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S501219","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对全膝关节置换术(TKA)术后短暂疼痛量表(BPI)最小临床重要差异(MCID)的研究是有限的。本研究通过确定原发性TKA患者BPI的MCID来解决这一差距。患者和方法:本研究旨在定量测定原发性TKA患者BPI的MCID。对288例患者进行前瞻性队列评估,术前和1年随访均给予BPI。MCID的计算主要采用两种方法:锚定法(被认为是黄金标准)和分布法。此外,本研究探索了基于分布的框架内的各种计算方法,并将其与基于锚定的方法进行了比较。基于分布的方法包括基于标准差(SD)、效应量(ES)、标准化反应均值(SRM)和测量标准误差(SEM)的计算。所有统计计算均采用已建立的公式进行。结果:锚定法确定BPI疼痛严重程度的MCID为3.9分,疼痛干扰维度为5.8分,总分为9.7分。与金标准的比较突出了0.65ES, 1.96SEM和0.5SRM方法是最适合基于分布的MCID估计的方法。结论:采用锚定法和分布法建立TKA患者BPI的MCID。当基于锚点的确定不可行时,建议使用基于分布的方法——0.65 es、1.96SEM和0.5 srm——来计算MCID。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantitative Analysis of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference in the Brief Pain Inventory After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Purpose: Research on the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) following Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is limited. This study addresses this gap by determining the MCID of the BPI for patients undergoing primary TKA.

Patients and methods: This study was designed to quantitatively determine the MCID of the BPI for patients undergoing primary TKA. A prospective cohort of 288 patients was evaluated, with the BPI administered both preoperatively and at a one-year follow-up. The MCID was calculated using two primary approaches: the anchor-based method, considered the gold standard, and the distribution-based method. Additionally, this study explored various calculation approaches within the distribution-based framework, benchmarking them against the anchor-based method. The distribution-based methods included calculations based on Standard Deviation (SD), Effect Size (ES), Standardized Response Mean (SRM), and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM). All statistical calculations were performed using established formulas.

Results: The anchor-based method determined the MCID for BPI pain severity to be 3.9 points, the pain interference dimension to be 5.8 points, and the total score to be 9.7 points. Comparisons with the gold standard highlighted the 0.65ES, 1.96SEM, and 0.5SRM methods as the most suitable approaches for distribution-based MCID estimation.

Conclusion: The MCID for BPI in TKA patients was established using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. When anchor-based determination is impractical, the distribution-based methods-0.65ES, 1.96SEM, and 0.5SRM-are recommended for MCID calculation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pain Research
Journal of Pain Research CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
411
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.
×
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