我们应该如何定义和评估手部的疼痛敏感性?一项国际e-Delphi研究。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
{"title":"我们应该如何定义和评估手部的疼痛敏感性?一项国际e-Delphi研究。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jht.2023.08.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Painful sensitivity in the hand is commonly seen with neuropathic pain, interfering with daily activities including rehabilitation. However, there are currently several terms used to describe the problem and a lack of guidance on what assessments should be used.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p><span>To gather expert opinion a) identifying current and common terminology used in hand therapy, b) developing a consensus definition of hypersensitivity, and c) developing consensus guidance on how to best assess </span>allodynia.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>International e-Delphi survey study.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted an e-Delphi consensus study drawing on international experts in hand rehabilitation. We planned up to four rounds of consensus-seeking, defining consensus as 75% or more of participants agreeing with a definition or recommendation. Experts were identified from 21 countries, with the nomination of other experts encouraged for ‘snowball sampling’. The first round included clinical vignettes describing ‘painful sensitivity of the hand’ and asked participants to describe how they would assess each case. Definitions for hypersensitivity, tactile hyperesthesia<span>, and allodynia were also requested.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>We invited 68 participants: 44 more were added through nominations. Sixty-three agreed to participate and were sent the round one survey; 54 participants from 19 countries completed this survey and were invited to participate in all subsequent rounds. No two definitions of hypersensitivity were the same, while 87% of the definitions for allodynia and 78% for tactile </span>hyperesthesia were concordant with a published taxonomy. Over 700 assessment items were proposed in round one: ultimately 38 items representing eight distinct constructs reached a consensus for assessing allodynia.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Therapists definitions were consistent with an existing taxonomy for allodynia. Although hypersensitivity conceptualizations varied regarding the qualities of stimulus and response, a working definition was reached. Recommended assessments were relatively consistent internationally, holistic, and reflected a potential link between allodynia and central sensitization.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Therapy","volume":"37 3","pages":"Pages 355-362"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How should we define and assess painful sensitivity in the hand? An international e-Delphi study\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jht.2023.08.012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Painful sensitivity in the hand is commonly seen with neuropathic pain, interfering with daily activities including rehabilitation. However, there are currently several terms used to describe the problem and a lack of guidance on what assessments should be used.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p><span>To gather expert opinion a) identifying current and common terminology used in hand therapy, b) developing a consensus definition of hypersensitivity, and c) developing consensus guidance on how to best assess </span>allodynia.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>International e-Delphi survey study.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted an e-Delphi consensus study drawing on international experts in hand rehabilitation. We planned up to four rounds of consensus-seeking, defining consensus as 75% or more of participants agreeing with a definition or recommendation. Experts were identified from 21 countries, with the nomination of other experts encouraged for ‘snowball sampling’. The first round included clinical vignettes describing ‘painful sensitivity of the hand’ and asked participants to describe how they would assess each case. Definitions for hypersensitivity, tactile hyperesthesia<span>, and allodynia were also requested.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>We invited 68 participants: 44 more were added through nominations. Sixty-three agreed to participate and were sent the round one survey; 54 participants from 19 countries completed this survey and were invited to participate in all subsequent rounds. No two definitions of hypersensitivity were the same, while 87% of the definitions for allodynia and 78% for tactile </span>hyperesthesia were concordant with a published taxonomy. Over 700 assessment items were proposed in round one: ultimately 38 items representing eight distinct constructs reached a consensus for assessing allodynia.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Therapists definitions were consistent with an existing taxonomy for allodynia. Although hypersensitivity conceptualizations varied regarding the qualities of stimulus and response, a working definition was reached. Recommended assessments were relatively consistent internationally, holistic, and reflected a potential link between allodynia and central sensitization.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54814,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hand Therapy\",\"volume\":\"37 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 355-362\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hand Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0894113023001163\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0894113023001163","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:手部疼痛敏感性常见于神经性疼痛,干扰包括康复在内的日常活动。然而,目前有几个术语用于描述这个问题,并且缺乏关于应该使用什么评估的指导。目的:收集专家意见a)确定手部治疗中使用的当前和常见术语,b)制定超敏反应的一致定义,以及c)就如何最好地评估异常性疼痛制定一致指导。研究设计:国际e-Delphi调查研究。方法:利用国际手部康复专家进行e-Delphi共识研究。我们计划了多达四轮寻求共识,将共识定义为75%或以上的参与者同意某一定义或建议。专家来自21个国家,并鼓励提名其他专家进行“滚雪球抽样”。第一轮包括描述“手的疼痛敏感性”的临床小插曲,并要求参与者描述他们将如何评估每个病例。还要求对超敏反应、触觉过敏和异常性疼痛进行定义。结果:我们邀请了68名参与者:通过提名增加了44名参与者。63人同意参加第一轮调查,并被派去参加;来自19个国家的54名参与者完成了这项调查,并被邀请参加随后的所有轮调查。没有两种超敏反应的定义是相同的,而87%的异常性疼痛和78%的触觉超敏反应定义与已发表的分类法一致。第一轮提出了700多个评估项目:最终,代表八种不同结构的38个项目达成了评估异常性疼痛的共识。结论:治疗师对异常性疼痛的定义与现有的分类法一致。尽管超敏反应的概念在刺激和反应的质量方面各不相同,但还是达成了一个有效的定义。建议的评估在国际上相对一致,具有整体性,反映了异常性疼痛和中枢致敏之间的潜在联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How should we define and assess painful sensitivity in the hand? An international e-Delphi study

Background

Painful sensitivity in the hand is commonly seen with neuropathic pain, interfering with daily activities including rehabilitation. However, there are currently several terms used to describe the problem and a lack of guidance on what assessments should be used.

Purpose

To gather expert opinion a) identifying current and common terminology used in hand therapy, b) developing a consensus definition of hypersensitivity, and c) developing consensus guidance on how to best assess allodynia.

Study design

International e-Delphi survey study.

Methods

We conducted an e-Delphi consensus study drawing on international experts in hand rehabilitation. We planned up to four rounds of consensus-seeking, defining consensus as 75% or more of participants agreeing with a definition or recommendation. Experts were identified from 21 countries, with the nomination of other experts encouraged for ‘snowball sampling’. The first round included clinical vignettes describing ‘painful sensitivity of the hand’ and asked participants to describe how they would assess each case. Definitions for hypersensitivity, tactile hyperesthesia, and allodynia were also requested.

Results

We invited 68 participants: 44 more were added through nominations. Sixty-three agreed to participate and were sent the round one survey; 54 participants from 19 countries completed this survey and were invited to participate in all subsequent rounds. No two definitions of hypersensitivity were the same, while 87% of the definitions for allodynia and 78% for tactile hyperesthesia were concordant with a published taxonomy. Over 700 assessment items were proposed in round one: ultimately 38 items representing eight distinct constructs reached a consensus for assessing allodynia.

Conclusions

Therapists definitions were consistent with an existing taxonomy for allodynia. Although hypersensitivity conceptualizations varied regarding the qualities of stimulus and response, a working definition was reached. Recommended assessments were relatively consistent internationally, holistic, and reflected a potential link between allodynia and central sensitization.

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 Hand Therapy
Journal of Hand Therapy 医学-外科
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
65
审稿时长
19.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Hand Therapy is designed for hand therapists, occupational and physical therapists, and other hand specialists involved in the rehabilitation of disabling hand problems. The Journal functions as a source of education and information by publishing scientific and clinical articles. Regular features include original reports, clinical reviews, case studies, editorials, and book reviews.
×
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