不同评估方法在肺切除术患者围手术期疼痛测量中的心理测量学特征

龚 若䶮; 冷虹瑶; 余鸿凡; 雷铖; 戴维; 魏星; 王雅琴; 廖佳; 石丘玲

doi:10.16016/j.2097-0927.202308030

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

不同评估方法在肺切除术患者围手术期疼痛测量中的心理测量学特征

临床医学 | 更新时间：2026-01-09

- 不同评估方法在肺切除术患者围手术期疼痛测量中的心理测量学特征
- Psychometric properties of different pain measuring scales in patients during perioperative period of lung resection
- 陆军军医大学学报 2023年45卷第20期页码：2132-2140
- 作者机构：
  
  1.400016 重庆，重庆医科大学公共卫生学院流行病学教研室
  2.400016 重庆，重庆医科大学生物医学工程学院超声医学工程国家重点实验室
  3.610041 成都，四川省肿瘤医院胸外科
  4.610041 成都，四川省肿瘤医院门诊部
- 作者简介：
  
  [石丘玲，E-mail: qshi@cqmu.edu.cn SHI Qiuling, E-mail: qshi@cqmu.edu.cn
- 基金信息：
  
  国家自然科学基金面上项目(81872506)
- DOI：10.16016/j.2097-0927.202308030
  中图分类号： R395.2;R441.1;R655.3
- 收稿：2023-08-09，
  
  修回：2023-08-31，
  
  纸质出版：2023-10-30
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
龚若䶮, 冷虹瑶, 余鸿凡, 等. 不同评估方法在肺切除术患者围手术期疼痛测量中的心理测量学特征[J]. 陆军军医大学学报, 2023,45(20):2132-2140.

Ruoyan GONG, Hongyao LENG, Hongfan YU, et al. Psychometric properties of different pain measuring scales in patients during perioperative period of lung resection[J]. Journal of Army Medical University, 2023, 45(20): 2132-2140.
龚若䶮, 冷虹瑶, 余鸿凡, 等. 不同评估方法在肺切除术患者围手术期疼痛测量中的心理测量学特征[J]. 陆军军医大学学报, 2023,45(20):2132-2140. DOI： 10.16016/j.2097-0927.202308030.

Ruoyan GONG, Hongyao LENG, Hongfan YU, et al. Psychometric properties of different pain measuring scales in patients during perioperative period of lung resection[J]. Journal of Army Medical University, 2023, 45(20): 2132-2140. DOI： 10.16016/j.2097-0927.202308030.

摘要

目的

探讨肺切除术患者围手术期使用4种疼痛评估方法进行疼痛测量时的心理测量学特性，选择肺切除术患者围手术期疼痛管理的最适评估方法。

方法

选取2021年10月至2022年4月四川省肿瘤医院410例肺切除术患者，分别在术前、术后住院期间(最长6 d)以及出院当天，同时采用4种方法[0~10数字疼痛评估法(numerical rating scale，NRS)、语言分级评估法(verbal rating scale，VRS)、视觉模拟评估法(visual analog scale，VAS)和修订版表情疼痛评估法(face pain scale revised，FPS-R)进行疼痛评估。使用Spearman相关性分析、独立样本

检验以及Cohen’s

效应值，对4种疼痛评估方法的信效度和反应度进行检验，采用χ

检验分析不同疼痛评估方法在患者首次填写时的错误率。

结果

各测量标尺间相关系数

在0.468~0.851之间，且所有相关系数均有统计学意义(

0.001)。其中，VRS与FPS-R之间相关性最强(

=0.610~0.818)，而NRS与VAS之间相关性最弱(

=0.553~0.791)。已知分组效度分析表明，NRS和VAS在区分能力上优于VRS及FPS-R。各方法评估术后疼痛变化的Cohen’

效应尺度均

0.7，其中，NRS对疼痛变化反应最为灵敏(Cohen’s

= 0.80)。NRS的首次错误率最低(9.76%)，VAS最高(30.73%)。

结论

4种评估方法都有较好的信效度及反应度，但在肺切除术围手术期患者常用的疼痛评估方法中，NRS错误率低、最灵敏、区分度良好，是综合应用效果最优的选择。

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the psychometric properties by 4 pain measurement scales in assessment of perioperative patients undergoing lung resection during pain assessment in order to obtain the most appropriate evaluation scale for perioperative pain management.

Methods

A total of 410 lung resection patients admitted in Sichuan Cancer Hospital from October 2021 and April 2022 were recruited in this study. The 4 pain assessment scales commonly used in clinical practice

that is

Numeric Rating Scale (NRS

0~10 points)

Verbal Rating Scale (VRS)

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

and Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R)

were used at the same time to evaluate their pain levels during the preoperative period

postoperative hospitalization (up to 6 d)

and on the day of discharge. Spearman correlation analysis

independent samples

test and Cohen's

effect value were adopted to test the reliability and responsiveness of the 4 scales

and

Chi

-square test was performed to analyze the first-fill error rate of the different pain assessment methods.

Results

The correlation coefficients

between each measurement scale ranged from 0.468 to 0.851

and all of them were statistically significant (

0.001). The strongest correlation was found between the results of VRS and FPS-R (

=0.610~0.818)

while the weakest was observed between NRS and VAS (

=0.553~0.791). Known-group validity analysis showed that NRS and VAS were superior to VRS and FPS-R in their ability to differentiate. The Cohen's

effect scale for each scale

in assessing postoperative pain changes was all

0.7

with NRS being most sensitive to pain changes (Cohen's

=0.80). NRS had the lowest first-time error rate (9.76%)

while VAS had the highest (30.73%).

Conclusion

All 4 assessment scales have good reliability and responsiveness

but in assessing pain in perioperative patients undergoing pulmonary resection

NRS is the optional choice with the best overall results because of its lowest error rate

highest sensitivity

and good discriminability.

关键词

Keywords

references

徐城, 杨晓秋, 刘丹彦. 常用的疼痛评估方法在临床疼痛评估中的作用[J]. 中国疼痛医学杂志, 2015, 21(3): 210-212. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9852.2015.03.011.

XU C, YANG X Q, LIU D Y. The role of common pain assessment methods in clinical pain assessment[J]. Chin J Pain Med, 2015, 21(3): 210-212. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9852.2015.03.011.

MENDOZA T R, WANG X S, LU C, et al . Measuring the symptom burden of lung cancer: the validity and utility of the lung cancer module of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory[J ] . Oncologist, 2011, 16(2): 217-227. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0193.

JENSEN M P, CASTARLENAS E, ROY R, et al . The utility and construct validity of four measures of pain intensity: results from a university-based study in Spain[J ] . Pain Med, 2019, 20(12): 2411-2420. DOI: 10.1093/pm/pny319.

HJERMSTAD M J, FAYERS P M, HAUGEN D F, et al . Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review[J ] . J Pain Symptom Manage, 2011, 41(6): 1073-1093. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016.

顾铭, 徐辉. 正畸疼痛影响因素及评估方法[J]. 北京口腔医学, 2022, 30(3): 222-224. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9852.2020.09.001.

GU M, XU H. Influencing factors and evaluation methods of orthodontic pain[J]. Beijing J Stomatol, 2022, 30(3): 222-224. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9852.2020.09.001.

田文珺, 苗壮. 疼痛的评估方法及临床应用[J]. 中国实用乡村医生杂志, 2020, 27(1): 3-5. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7185.2020.01.003.

TIAN W J, MIAO Z. Evaluation method of pain and its clinical application[J]. Chin J Pract Rural Dr, 2020, 27(1): 3-5. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7185.2020.01.003.

刘满平. 疼痛评估方法及其运用[J]. 包头医学, 2017, 41(2): 65-67. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3507.2017.02.001.

LIU M P. Pain assessment method and its application[J]. J Baotou Med, 2017, 41(2): 65-67. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3507.2017.02.001.

李新女. 外科术后疼痛的评估与护理管理研究进展[J]. 中医药管理杂志, 2015, 23(19): 65-66.

LI X N. Research progress on evaluation and nursing management of postoperative pain[J]. J Trad Chin Med Manag, 2015, 23(19): 65-66.

LOESER J D, MELZACK R. Pain: an overview[J]. Lancet, 1999, 353(9164): 1607-1609. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)01311-2.

FARRAR J T, YOUNG J P Jr, LAMOREAUX L, et al . Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale[J ] . Pain, 2001, 94(2): 149-158. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9.

WIKSTRÖM L, NILSSON M, BROSTRÖM A, et al . Patients' self-reported nausea: validation of the Numerical Rating Scale and of a daily summary of repeated Numerical Rating Scale scores[J ] . J Clin Nurs, 2019, 28(5/6): 959-968. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14705.

ABAHUSSIN A A, WEST R M, WONG D C, et al . PROMs for pain in adult cancer patients: a systematic review of measurement properties[J ] . Pain Pract, 2019, 19(1): 93-117. DOI: 10.1111/papr.12711.

CARLSSON A M. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale[J]. Pain, 1983, 16(1): 87-101. DOI: 10.1016/0304-3959(83)90088-X.

HAWKSLEY H. Pain assessment using a visual analogue scale[J]. Prof Nurse, 2000, 15(9): 593-597.

HARTRICK C T. A four-category verbal rating scale (VRS-4), an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS-11), and a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) were compared in the assessment of acute pain after oral surgery[J]. Clin J Pain, 2001, 17(1): 104-105. DOI: 10.1097/00002508-200103000-00016.

AUN C, LAM Y M, COLLETT B. Evaluation of the use of visual analogue scale in Chinese patients[J]. Pain, 1986, 25(2): 215-221. DOI: 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90095-3.

TORENSMA B, OUDEJANS L, VAN VELZEN M, et al . Pain sensitivity and pain scoring in patients with morbid obesity[J ] . Surg Obes Relat Dis, 2017, 13(5): 788-795. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2017.01.015.

MYRVIK M P, DRENDEL A L, BRANDOW A M, et al . A comparison of pain assessment measures in pediatric sickle cell disease: visual analog scale versus numeric rating scale[J ] . J Pediatr Hematol Oncol, 2015, 37(3): 190-194. DOI: 10.1097/MPH.0000000000000306.

BOOKER S S, HERR K. The state-of- "cultural validity" of self-report pain assessment tools in diverse older adults[J]. Pain Med, 2015, 16(2): 232-239. DOI: 10.1111/pme.12496.

QUINN B L, SHELDON L K, COOLEY M E. Pediatric pain assessment by drawn faces scales: a review[J]. Pain Manag Nurs, 2014, 15(4): 909-918. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2014.03.004.

AHMED I, ISHTIAQ S. Reliability and validity: importance in medical research[J]. J Pak Med Assoc, 2021, 71(10): 2401-2406. DOI: 10.47391/JPMA.06-861.

LI Y, SONG B J, LI Z, et al . Comparison of the effects of sufentanil and fentanyl on postoperative sleep quality of children undergoing tonsillectomy and adenotomy: a randomized controlled trial[J ] . Nat Sci Sleep, 2021, 13: 821-828. DOI: 10.2147/nss.s309044.

KARCIOGLU O, TOPACOGLU H, DIKME O, et al . A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: which to use?[J ] . Am J Emerg Med, 2018, 36(4): 707-714. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.008.

ALGHADIR A H, ANWER S, IQBAL A, et al . Test-retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change of visual analog, numerical rating, and verbal rating scales for measurement of osteoarthritic knee pain[J ] . J Pain Res, 2018, 11: 851-856. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S158847.

AKTAS H, UYAR M, KORHAN E A, et al . Validity and reliability study for the Turkish version of global pain scale[J ] . J Pak Med Asso c, 2019, 69(9): 1246-1252.

李漓. 手术疼痛强度的评估[D]. 广州: 中国人民解放军第一军医大学, 2003: 29-32.

LI L. Evaluation of surgical pain intensity[D]. Guangzhou: First Military Medical University, 2003: 29-32.

TWYCROSS A, VOEPEL-LEWIS T, VINCENT C, et al . A debate on the proposition that self-report is the gold standard in assessment of pediatric pain intensity[J ] . Clin J Pain, 2015, 31(8): 707-712. DOI: 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000165.

TACHIBANA S, MURATSU H, TSUBOSAKA M, et al . Evaluation of consistency of patient-satisfaction score in the 2011 Knee Society Score to other patient-reported outcome measures[J ] . J Orthop Sci, 2022, 27(3): 652-657. DOI: 10.1016/j.jos.2021.02.007.

CLEELAND C S, RYAN K M. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory[J]. Ann Acad Med Singap, 1994, 23(2): 129-138.

BOURDEL N, ALVES J, PICKERING G, et al . Systematic review of endometriosis pain assessment: how to choose a scale?[J ] . Hum Reprod Update, 2015, 21(1): 136-152. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmu046.

THONG K, JENSEN M P, MIRÓ J, et al . The validity of pain intensity measures: what do the NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS-R measure?. Scand J Pain. 2018;18(1): 99-107. DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2018-0012

LEE H J, CHO Y, JOO H, et al . Comparative study of verbal rating scale and numerical rating scale to assess postoperative pain intensity in the post anesthesia care unit: a prospective observational cohort study[J ] . Medicine (Baltimore), 2021, 100(6): e24314. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024314.

HUANG Y J, CHEN K L, CHOU Y T, et al . Comparison of the responsiveness of the long-form and simplified stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement: group- and individual-level analysis[J ] . Phys Ther, 2015, 95(8): 1172-1183. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140331.

MA X Q, ZHANG H, XU T. Whether ambulatory electroencephalogram and visual tracking system could be the new strategy for pain assessment?[J]. Front Neurosci, 2023, 17: 1122614. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1122614.

戴维, 冯文红, 张远强, 等. 建立基于电子化患者报告结局的症状管理系统的实践[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2021, 13(2): 139-142. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-4055.2021.02.03

DAI W, FENG W H, ZHANG Y Q, et al . Establishing a symptom management system based on electronic patient-reported outcome[J ] . Chin J Evid Based Cardiovasc Med, 2021, 13(2): 139-142. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-4055.2021.02.03

张雯, 黄青梅, 黄跃师, 等. 患者报告结局测量信息系统电子化数据收集工具的研究与发展现状[J]. 护士进修杂志, 2021, 36(4): 289-293. DOI: 10.16821/j.cnki.hsjx.2021.25.007.

ZHANG W, HUANG Q M, HUANG Y S, et al . Research and development status of electronic data collection tools for patient report outcome measurement information system[J ] . J Nurses Train, 2021, 36(4): 289-293. DOI: 10.16821/j.cnki.hsjx.2021.25.007.

浏览量

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

亲子疏离问卷在军人群体中的修订、信效度检验和常模初步构建

军人心理健康综合评估问卷的编制

军人自我形象量表的编制及其与心理健康状态的关系

负性认知加工偏向问卷在军人群体中的信效度评价

军人心理健康能力量表的因素分析与信效度分析