Brief Pain Inventory-Facial minimum clinically important difference

被引:26
|
作者
Sandhu, Sukhmeet K. [1 ]
Halpern, Casey H. [1 ]
Vakhshori, Venus [1 ]
Mirsaeedi-Farahani, Keyvan [1 ]
Farrar, John T. [2 ]
Lee, John Y. K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Dept Neurosurg, Philadelphia, PA 19106 USA
[2] Univ Penn, Dept Biostat & Epidemiol, Philadelphia, PA 19106 USA
关键词
trigeminal neuralgia; facial pain; Brief Pain Inventory; Brief Pain Inventory-Facial; minimum clinically important difference; functional neurosurgery; MICROVASCULAR DECOMPRESSION; TRIGEMINAL NEURALGIA; OUTCOME MEASURES; HEALTH-STATUS; INTENSITY; QUALITY; RESPONSIVENESS;
D O I
10.3171/2014.8.JNS132547
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECT Neurosurgeons are frequently the primary physicians measuring pain relief in patients with trigeminal neuralgia (TN). Unfortunately, the measurement of pain can be complex. The Brief Pain Inventory Facial (BPI-Facial) is a reliable and validated multidimensional tool that consists of 18 questions. It measures 3 domains of pain: 1) pain intensity (worst and average pain intensity), 2) interference with general activities of daily living (ADL), and 3) face-specific pain interference. The objective of this paper is to determine the patient-reported minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using the BPI-Facial. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective study of 234 patients with TN seen in a single neurosurgeon's office. Patients completed baseline and 1-month follow-up BPI-Facial questionnaires. The MCID was calculated using an anchor-based approach in which the defined anchor was the 7-point patient global impression of change (PGIC). Two statistical methods were employed: mean change score and optimal cutoff point. RESULTS Using the mean change score method, the investigators calculated the MCID for the 3 domains of the BPI-Facial: 44% and 30% improvernent in pain intensity at its worst and average, respectively, 54%' improvement in interference with general ADL, and 63% improvement in interference with facial ADL. Using the optimal cutoff point method, they also calculated the MCID for the 3 domains of the BPI-Facial: 57% and 28% improvement in pain intensity at its worst and average, respectively, 75% improvement in interference With general ADL, and 62% improvement in interference with facial ADL. CONCLUSIONS The BPI-Facial is a multidimensional pain scale that measures 3 domains of pain. Although 2 statistical methods were used to calculate the MCID, the optimal cutoff point method was the superior one because it used data from the majority of subjects included in this study. A 57% improvement in pain intensity at its worst and a 28% improvement in pain intensity at its average were the MCIDs for patients with facial pain. A greater improvement was needed to achieve the MCID for interference with general and facial ADL. A 75% improvement in interference with general ADL and a 62% improvement in interference with facial ADL were needed to achieve an MCID. While pain intensity is easier to measure, pain's interference with ADL may be more important for patient outcomes when designing or evaluating interventions in the field of TN. The BPI-Facial is a useful instrument to measure changes in multidimensional aspects of pain in patients with TN.
引用
收藏
页码:180 / 190
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The role of the minimum clinically important difference and its impact on designing a trial
    Chuang-Stein, Christy
    Kirby, Simon
    Hirsch, Ian
    Atkinson, Gary
    [J]. PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2011, 10 (03) : 250 - 256
  • [42] The meaning of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID): Which direction to take?
    Pruppers, Marielle
    Draak, Thomas
    de Greef, Bianca
    Faber, Catharine
    Merkies, Ingemar
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, 2018, 23 (04) : 310 - 311
  • [43] Reply to: the minimum clinically important difference is fundamental to all clinical trials
    Walder, Bernhard
    Maillard, Julien
    Luebbeke, Anne
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2016, 33 (01) : 61 - 61
  • [44] The Minimum Clinically Important Difference in the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status
    Phillips, Rachel
    Qi, Gao
    Collinson, Simon Lowes
    Ling, Audrey
    Feng, Lei
    Cheung, Yin Bun
    Ng, Tze-Pin
    [J]. CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST, 2015, 29 (07) : 905 - 923
  • [45] What is the Minimum Clinically Important Difference for the WOMAC Index After TKA?
    Clement, Nicholas D.
    Bardgett, Michelle
    Weir, David
    Holland, James
    Gerrand, Craig
    Deehan, David J.
    [J]. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2018, 476 (10) : 2005 - 2014
  • [46] CORR InsightsA®: What is the Minimum Clinically Important Difference in Grip Strength?
    Carofino, Bradley C.
    [J]. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2014, 472 (09) : 2857 - 2858
  • [47] MINIMUM CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IN THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT FUNCTIONING IN PATIENTS WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA
    Amri, I
    Millier, A.
    Toumi, M.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2014, 17 (07) : A765 - A766
  • [48] Minimum clinically important difference for the COPD Assessment Test: a prospective analysis
    Kon, Samantha S. C.
    Canavan, Jane L.
    Jones, Sarah E.
    Nolan, Claire M.
    Clark, Amy L.
    Dickson, Mandy J.
    Haselden, Brigitte M.
    Polkey, Michael I.
    Man, William D-C
    [J]. LANCET RESPIRATORY MEDICINE, 2014, 2 (03): : 195 - 203
  • [49] Time to achievement of minimum clinically important difference after lumbar decompression
    James W. Nie
    Vincent P. Federico
    Timothy J. Hartman
    Eileen Zheng
    Omolabake O. Oyetayo
    Keith R. MacGregor
    Dustin H. Massel
    Arash J. Sayari
    Kern Singh
    [J]. Acta Neurochirurgica, 2023, 165 : 2625 - 2631
  • [50] Minimum clinically important difference for brain atrophy measures in multiple sclerosis
    Azevedo, C.
    Cen, S.
    Zheng, L.
    Jaberzadeh, A.
    Pelletier, D.
    [J]. MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL, 2019, 25 : 697 - 698