Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache
OFPH Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: OFPH
Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache

Edited by Barry J. Sessle, BDS, MDS, BSc, PhD, FRSC

Official Journal of the American Academy of Orofacial Pain,
the European, Asian, and Ibero-Latin Academies of Craniomandibular
Disorders, and the Australian Academy of Orofacial Pain

ISSN 2333-0384 (print) • ISSN 2333-0376 (online)

Publication:
Winter 2008
Volume 22 , Issue 1

Back
Share Abstract:

A Method for Clinically Defining “Improvers” in Chronic Pain Studies

Robert W. Wassell, PhD/M. Adel Moufti, PhD/John G. Meechan, PhD/Ian N. Steen, PhD/James G. Steele, PhD

Pages: 30–40
PMID: 18351032

Aims: To test a measurement model based on clinicians’ assessments of patient data that allows simple and confident clinical validation of any statistical or numerical technique designed to separate patients improving with treatment from those who are not, particularly for pain that shows large daily variation. Methods: Diaries using daily visual analog scales (VAS) of pain intensity were obtained from 39 patients treated for chronic temporomandibular disorders. Three experienced clinicians visually assessed 39 VAS/time graphs. Criteria indicating improvement (general trend, height and apparent frequency of graph spikes) evolved over 3 assessments. The third assessment defined improvers visually. Numeric analyses considered the difference between first and last months of treatment for mean, area under the curve (AUC), and maximum VAS scores. Thresholds of 40%, 50%, or 60% pain reduction defined improvement numerically. Aggregate sensitivity and specificity was compared with visual definition to find the optimal threshold. Results: Patients were defined visually as improvers, nonimprovers, and borderline cases. Interexaminer reliability for identifying improvers was good (k = 0.79). Mean VAS and AUC were highly correlated (r = 0.999). The optimal threshold of mean and maximum VAS relative to visual definition was 50% pain reduction. Cases defined as improvers by both mean and maximum agreed best with the visual definition (sensitivity 90%, specificity 84%). Conclusion: Visual assessment of VAS demonstrates distinct pain/time patterns that can validate numeric definition of complex pain recovery. No single numeric method can be guaranteed to give a clinically valid outcome. J Orofac Pain 2008;22:30–40 Key words: chronic pain, pain diaries, pain measurement, stabilization splint, temporomandibular disorders, treatment outcomes, visual analog scales

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog