| Title |
A review of general pain measurement tools and instruments for consideration of use in COPD clinical practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s119889 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alisha Maree Johnson, Sheree MS Smith |
| Abstract |
The experience of pain can have a significant impact on the everyday life of individuals including those with COPD. Recently, pain has emerged as an area in COPD research. When considering pain measurement in COPD studies, it is important to consider the validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of instruments and tools. This review sought to assess these domains of general pain instruments and tools using the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN). Three separate analyses were used to assess general pain measurement tools and instruments. These comprise COSMIN's, 1) methodological quality assessment with dichotomous responses, 2) the 4-point rating scale, and 3) overall quality criteria using an assessment scale for clinimetric properties by Terwee. Overall Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ) was found to have the highest rating in all domains of validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability. In the first analysis, PSQ and Geriatric Pain Measure (GPM) scored highest in four of the six domains. In the second analysis, using the 4-point rating, the PSQ scored highest in three of four domains. In the third analysis, the GPM scored the highest in all four domains. Overall the PSQ, GPM and Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale scores were consistently high in the three separate analyses in this review. This review found variability in the domains of validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability in general pain tools and instruments. The PSQ was found to be the most valid and reliable general pain measurement instrument for adult populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 23% |
| Psychology | 7 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#2,079
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,546
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#59
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.