A novel tool for the assessment of pain: validation in low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Adequate pain assessment is critical for evaluating the efficacy of analgesic treatment in clinical practice and during the development of new therapies. Yet the currently used scores of global pain intensity fail to reflect the diversity of pain manifestations and the complexity of underlying biological mechanisms. We have developed a tool for a standardized assessment of pain-related symptoms and signs that differentiates pain phenotypes independent of etiology. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a structured interview (16 questions) and a standardized bedside examination (23 tests), we prospectively assessed symptoms and signs in 130 patients with peripheral neuropathic pain caused by diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or radicular low back pain (LBP), and in 57 patients with non-neuropathic (axial) LBP. A hierarchical cluster analysis revealed distinct association patterns of symptoms and signs (pain subtypes) that characterized six subgroups of patients with neuropathic pain and two subgroups of patients with non-neuropathic pain. Using a classification tree analysis, we identified the most discriminatory assessment items for the identification of pain subtypes. We combined these six interview questions and ten physical tests in a pain assessment tool that we named Standardized Evaluation of Pain (StEP). We validated StEP for the distinction between radicular and axial LBP in an independent group of 137 patients. StEP identified patients with radicular pain with high sensitivity (92%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 83%-97%) and specificity (97%; 95% CI 89%-100%). The diagnostic accuracy of StEP exceeded that of a dedicated screening tool for neuropathic pain and spinal magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, we were able to reproduce subtypes of radicular and axial LBP, underscoring the utility of StEP for discerning distinct constellations of symptoms and signs. CONCLUSIONS: We present a novel method of identifying pain subtypes that we believe reflect underlying pain mechanisms. We demonstrate that this new approach to pain assessment helps separate radicular from axial back pain. Beyond diagnostic utility, a standardized differentiation of pain subtypes that is independent of disease etiology may offer a unique opportunity to improve targeted analgesic treatment.

Same wording, distinct concepts? Testing differences between expectancies and motives in a mediation model of alcohol outcomes.

Per definition, alcohol expectancies (after alcohol I expect X), and drinking motives (I drink to achieve X) are conceptually distinct constructs. Theorists have argued that motives mediate the association between expectancies and drinking outcomes. Yet, given the use of different instruments, do these constructs remain distinct when assessment items are matched? The present study tested to what extent motives mediated the link between expectancies and alcohol outcomes when identical items were used, first as expectancies and then as motives. A linear structural equation model was estimated based on a national representative sample of 5,779 alcohol-using students in Switzerland (mean age = 15.2 years). The results showed that expectancies explained up to 38% of the variance in motives. Together with motives, they explained up to 48% of the variance in alcohol outcomes (volume, 5+ drinking, and problems). In 10 of 12 outcomes, there was a significant mediated effect that was often higher than the direct expectancy effect. For coping, the expectancy effect was close to zero, indicating the strongest form of mediation. In only one case (conformity and 5+ drinking), there was a direct expectancy effect but no mediation. To conclude, the study demonstrates that motives are distinct from expectancies even when identical items are used. Motives are more proximally related to different alcohol outcomes, often mediating the effects of expectancies. Consequently, the effectiveness of interventions, particularly those aimed at coping drinkers, should be improved through a shift in focus from expectancies to drinking motives.

Systematic assessment of items influencing Crohn's disease patient's preferences in selecting an anti-TNF agent (Choose TNF trial)

Background and Aims: The three anti-TNF agents infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA) andcertolizumab pegol (CZP) have demonstrated similar efficacy in induction and maintenanceof response and remission in Crohn's disease (CD) treatment. Given the comparability ofthese drugs, patient's preferences may influence the choice of the product. However, dataon patient's preferences for choosing anti-TNF agents are lacking. We therefore aimed toassess the CD patient's appraisal to select the drug of his choice and to identify factorsguiding this decision.Methods: A prospective survey among anti-TNF-naive CD patientswas performed. Patients were provided a description of the three anti-TNF agents focusingon indication, application mode (s.c. vs. i.v.), application time intervals, setting of application(hospital vs. private practice vs. patient's home), average time to apply the medication permonth, typical side effects, and the scientific evidence of efficacy and safety available for everydrug. Patients answered a questionnaire consisting of 17 questions, covering demographic,disease-specific, and medication data.Results: Hundred patients (47f/53m, mean age 45±16years) completed the questionnaire. Disease duration was <1year in 7%, 1-5 years in 31%,and >5 years in 62% of patients. Disease location was ileal in 33%, colonic in 40%, andileocolonic in 27%. Disease phenotype was inflammatory in 68%, stenosing in 29%, andinternally fistulizing in 3% of patients. Additionally, 20% had perianal fistulizing disease.Patients were already treated with the following drugs: mesalamines 61%, budesonide 44%,prednisone 97%, thiopurines 78%, methotrexate 16%. In total, 30% had already heardabout IFX, 20% about ADA, and 11% about CZP. Thirty-six percent voted for treatmentwith ADA, 28% for CZP, and 25% for IFX, whereas 11% were undecided. The followingfactors influenced the patient's decision for choosing a specific anti-TNF drug (severalanswers possible): side effects 76%, physician's recommendation 66%, application mode54%, efficacy experience 52%, time to spend for therapy 27%, patient's recommendations21%, interactions with other medications 12%. The single most important factor for choosinga specific anti-TNF was (1 answer): side effect profile 35%, physician's recommendation22%, efficacy experience 21%, application mode 13%, patient's recommendations 5%, timespent for therapy 3%, interaction with other medications 1%.Conclusions: The majority ofpatients preferred anti-TNF syringes to infusions. The safety profile of the drugs and thephysician's recommendation are major factors influencing the patient's choice for a specificanti-TNF drug. Patient's issues about safety and lifestyle habits should be taken into accountwhen prescribing specific anti-TNF formulations.

Evaluation of email alerts in practice: Part 2. Validation of the information assessment method.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE:. The information assessment method (IAM) permits health professionals to systematically document the relevance, cognitive impact, use and health outcomes of information objects delivered by or retrieved from electronic knowledge resources. The companion review paper (Part 1) critically examined the literature, and proposed a 'Push-Pull-Acquisition-Cognition-Application' evaluation framework, which is operationalized by IAM. The purpose of the present paper (Part 2) is to examine the content validity of the IAM cognitive checklist when linked to email alerts. METHODS: A qualitative component of a mixed methods study was conducted with 46 doctors reading and rating research-based synopses sent on email. The unit of analysis was a doctor's explanation of a rating of one item regarding one synopsis. Interviews with participants provided 253 units that were analysed to assess concordance with item definitions. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The content relevance of seven items was supported. For three items, revisions were needed. Interviews suggested one new item. This study has yielded a 2008 version of IAM.

Activity assessment of eosinophilic esophagitis.

The activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) can be assessed with patient-reported outcomes and biologic measures. Patient-reported outcomes include symptoms and quality of life, whereas biologic measures refer to endoscopic, histologic, and biochemical activity (e.g. blood biomarkers). So far, a validated tool to assess EoE activity in the above-mentioned dimensions is lacking. Given the lack of a standardized way to assess EoE activity in the various dimensions, the results of different clinical trials may be difficult to compare. For symptom assessment in adult patients, the symptom 'dysphagia' should be evaluated according to different standardized food consistencies. Furthermore, symptom assessment should take into account the following items: avoidance of specific food categories, food modification, and time to eat a regular meal. A distinct symptom recall period (e.g. 2 weeks) has to be defined for symptom assessment. Performing an 'esophageal stress test' with ingestion of a standardized meal to measure symptom severity bears the potential risk of acute food bolus impaction and should therefore be avoided. The description of endoscopic findings in EoE has meanwhile been standardized. Histologic evaluation of EoE activity should report either the size of the high-power field used or count the eosinophils per mm(2). There is a current lack of blood biomarkers demonstrating a good correlation with histologic activity in esophageal biopsies. The development and validation of an adult and pediatric EoE activity index is urgently needed not only for clinical trials and observational studies, but also for daily practice.

Similarities and dissimilarities between the Movement ABC-2 and the Zurich Neuromotor Assessment in children with suspected developmental coordination disorder.

An established tool for the assessment of motor performance in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is the Movement-ABC-2 (M-ABC-2). The Zurich Neuromotor Assessment (ZNA) is also widely used for the evaluation of children's motor performance, but has not been compared with the M-ABC-2. Fifty-one children (39 males) between 5 and 7 years of age with suspected DCD were assessed using the M-ABC-2 and the ZNA. Rank correlations between scores of different test components were calculated. The structure of the tests was explored using canonical-correlation analysis. The correlation between total scores of the two motor tests was reasonable (0.66; p<0.001). However, ZNA scores were generally lower than those of M-ABC-2, due to poor performance in the fine motor adaptive component and increased contralateral associated movements (CAM). The canonical-correlation analysis revealed that ZNA measures components like pure motor skills and CAM that are not represented in the M-ABC-2. Furthermore, there was also no equivalent for the aiming and catching items of the M-ABC-2 in ZNA. The two tests measure different motor characteristics in children with suspected DCD and, thus, can be used complementary for the diagnosis of the disorder.

Factor analysis of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument: a study based on a spine registry of patients treated with lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Studies involving factor analysis (FA) of the items in the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome assessment instrument have revealed inconsistent factor structures for the individual items. PURPOSE: This study examined whether the factor structure of the NASS varied in relation to the severity of the back/neck problem and differed from that originally recommended by the developers of the questionnaire, by analyzing data before and after surgery in a large series of patients undergoing lumbar or cervical disc arthroplasty. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective multicenter observational case series. PATIENT SAMPLE: Three hundred ninety-one patients with low back pain and 553 patients with neck pain completed questionnaires preoperatively and again at 3 to 6 and 12 months follow-ups (FUs), in connection with the SWISSspine disc arthroplasty registry. OUTCOME MEASURES: North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument. METHODS: First, an exploratory FA without a priori assumptions and subsequently a confirmatory FA were performed on the 17 items of the NASS-lumbar and 19 items of the NASS-cervical collected at each assessment time point. The item-loading invariance was tested in the German version of the questionnaire for baseline and FU. RESULTS: Both NASS-lumbar and NASS-cervical factor structures differed between baseline and postoperative data sets. The confirmatory analysis and item-loading invariance showed better fit for a three-factor (3F) structure for NASS-lumbar, containing items on "disability," "back pain," and "radiating pain, numbness, and weakness (leg/foot)" and for a 5F structure for NASS-cervical including disability, "neck pain," "radiating pain and numbness (arm/hand)," "weakness (arm/hand)," and "motor deficit (legs)." CONCLUSIONS: The best-fitting factor structure at both baseline and FU was selected for both the lumbar- and cervical-NASS questionnaires. It differed from that proposed by the originators of the NASS instruments. Although the NASS questionnaire represents a valid outcome measure for degenerative spine diseases, it is able to distinguish among all major symptom domains (factors) in patients undergoing lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty; overall, the item structure could be improved. Any potential revision of the NASS should consider its factorial structure; factorial invariance over time should be aimed for, to allow for more precise interpretations of treatment success.

Validation of the Mini Nutritional Assessment short-form (MNA-SF): a practical tool for identification of nutritional status.

OBJECTIVE: To validate a revision of the Mini Nutritional Assessment short-form (MNA(R)-SF) against the full MNA, a standard tool for nutritional evaluation. METHODS: A literature search identified studies that used the MNA for nutritional screening in geriatric patients. The contacted authors submitted original datasets that were merged into a single database. Various combinations of the questions on the current MNA-SF were tested using this database through combination analysis and ROC based derivation of classification thresholds. RESULTS: Twenty-seven datasets (n=6257 participants) were initially processed from which twelve were used in the current analysis on a sample of 2032 study participants (mean age 82.3y) with complete information on all MNA items. The original MNA-SF was a combination of six questions from the full MNA. A revised MNA-SF included calf circumference (CC) substituted for BMI performed equally well. A revised three-category scoring classification for this revised MNA-SF, using BMI and/or CC, had good sensitivity compared to the full MNA. CONCLUSION: The newly revised MNA-SF is a valid nutritional screening tool applicable to geriatric health care professionals with the option of using CC when BMI cannot be calculated. This revised MNA-SF increases the applicability of this rapid screening tool in clinical practice through the inclusion of a "malnourished" category.

Graphical probabilistic analysis of the combination of items of evidence

Unlike the evaluation of single items of scientific evidence, the formal study and analysis of the jointevaluation of several distinct items of forensic evidence has to date received some punctual, ratherthan systematic, attention. Questions about the (i) relationships among a set of (usually unobservable)propositions and a set of (observable) items of scientific evidence, (ii) the joint probative valueof a collection of distinct items of evidence as well as (iii) the contribution of each individual itemwithin a given group of pieces of evidence still represent fundamental areas of research. To somedegree, this is remarkable since both, forensic science theory and practice, yet many daily inferencetasks, require the consideration of multiple items if not masses of evidence. A recurrent and particularcomplication that arises in such settings is that the application of probability theory, i.e. the referencemethod for reasoning under uncertainty, becomes increasingly demanding. The present paper takesthis as a starting point and discusses graphical probability models, i.e. Bayesian networks, as frameworkwithin which the joint evaluation of scientific evidence can be approached in some viable way.Based on a review of existing main contributions in this area, the article here aims at presentinginstances of real case studies from the author's institution in order to point out the usefulness andcapacities of Bayesian networks for the probabilistic assessment of the probative value of multipleand interrelated items of evidence. A main emphasis is placed on underlying general patterns of inference,their representation as well as their graphical probabilistic analysis. Attention is also drawnto inferential interactions, such as redundancy, synergy and directional change. These distinguish thejoint evaluation of evidence from assessments of isolated items of evidence. Together, these topicspresent aspects of interest to both, domain experts and recipients of expert information, because theyhave bearing on how multiple items of evidence are meaningfully and appropriately set into context.