Comparative responsiveness of pain measures in cancer patients

Kurt Kroenke, Dale Theobald, Jingwei Wu, Wanzhu Tu, Erin E. Krebs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Brief measures to assess and monitor pain in cancer patients are available, but few head-to-head psychometric comparisons of different measures have been reported. Baseline and 3-month data were analyzed from 274 patients enrolled in the Indiana Cancer Pain and Depression (INCPAD) trial. Participants completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the PEG (a 3-item abbreviated version of the BPI), the short form (SF)-36 pain scale, and a pain global rating of change measure. The global rating was used as the criterion for standardized response mean and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. To assess responsiveness to the trial intervention, we evaluated standardized effect size statistics stratified by trial arm. All measures were responsive to global improvement, discriminated between participants with and without improvement, and detected a significant intervention treatment effect. Short and longer measures were similarly responsive. Also, composite measures that combined pain severity and interference into a single score (BPI total, PEG, SF-36 pain) performed comparably to separate measures of each domain (BPI severity and BPI interference). Perspective: Pain measures as brief as 2 or 3 items that provide a single score are responsive in patients with cancer-related pain. Ultra-brief measures offer a valid and efficient means of assessing and monitoring pain for the clinical management as well as research of cancer-related pain.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)764-772
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Pain
Volume13
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2012

Fingerprint

Pain
Neoplasms
Equipment and Supplies
Pain Management
Psychometrics
ROC Curve
Depression
Cancer Pain
Research

Keywords

  • assessment
  • Cancer
  • diagnosis
  • measures
  • pain
  • psychometrics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Comparative responsiveness of pain measures in cancer patients. / Kroenke, Kurt; Theobald, Dale; Wu, Jingwei; Tu, Wanzhu; Krebs, Erin E.

In: Journal of Pain, Vol. 13, No. 8, 08.2012, p. 764-772.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kroenke, Kurt ; Theobald, Dale ; Wu, Jingwei ; Tu, Wanzhu ; Krebs, Erin E. / Comparative responsiveness of pain measures in cancer patients. In: Journal of Pain. 2012 ; Vol. 13, No. 8. pp. 764-772.
@article{65005711ab724f71b7b144899c2f4e7b,
title = "Comparative responsiveness of pain measures in cancer patients",
abstract = "Brief measures to assess and monitor pain in cancer patients are available, but few head-to-head psychometric comparisons of different measures have been reported. Baseline and 3-month data were analyzed from 274 patients enrolled in the Indiana Cancer Pain and Depression (INCPAD) trial. Participants completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the PEG (a 3-item abbreviated version of the BPI), the short form (SF)-36 pain scale, and a pain global rating of change measure. The global rating was used as the criterion for standardized response mean and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. To assess responsiveness to the trial intervention, we evaluated standardized effect size statistics stratified by trial arm. All measures were responsive to global improvement, discriminated between participants with and without improvement, and detected a significant intervention treatment effect. Short and longer measures were similarly responsive. Also, composite measures that combined pain severity and interference into a single score (BPI total, PEG, SF-36 pain) performed comparably to separate measures of each domain (BPI severity and BPI interference). Perspective: Pain measures as brief as 2 or 3 items that provide a single score are responsive in patients with cancer-related pain. Ultra-brief measures offer a valid and efficient means of assessing and monitoring pain for the clinical management as well as research of cancer-related pain.",
keywords = "assessment, Cancer, diagnosis, measures, pain, psychometrics",
author = "Kurt Kroenke and Dale Theobald and Jingwei Wu and Wanzhu Tu and Krebs, {Erin E.}",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.jpain.2012.05.004",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "764--772",
journal = "Journal of Pain",
issn = "1526-5900",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative responsiveness of pain measures in cancer patients

AU - Kroenke, Kurt

AU - Theobald, Dale

AU - Wu, Jingwei

AU - Tu, Wanzhu

AU - Krebs, Erin E.

PY - 2012/8

Y1 - 2012/8

N2 - Brief measures to assess and monitor pain in cancer patients are available, but few head-to-head psychometric comparisons of different measures have been reported. Baseline and 3-month data were analyzed from 274 patients enrolled in the Indiana Cancer Pain and Depression (INCPAD) trial. Participants completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the PEG (a 3-item abbreviated version of the BPI), the short form (SF)-36 pain scale, and a pain global rating of change measure. The global rating was used as the criterion for standardized response mean and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. To assess responsiveness to the trial intervention, we evaluated standardized effect size statistics stratified by trial arm. All measures were responsive to global improvement, discriminated between participants with and without improvement, and detected a significant intervention treatment effect. Short and longer measures were similarly responsive. Also, composite measures that combined pain severity and interference into a single score (BPI total, PEG, SF-36 pain) performed comparably to separate measures of each domain (BPI severity and BPI interference). Perspective: Pain measures as brief as 2 or 3 items that provide a single score are responsive in patients with cancer-related pain. Ultra-brief measures offer a valid and efficient means of assessing and monitoring pain for the clinical management as well as research of cancer-related pain.

AB - Brief measures to assess and monitor pain in cancer patients are available, but few head-to-head psychometric comparisons of different measures have been reported. Baseline and 3-month data were analyzed from 274 patients enrolled in the Indiana Cancer Pain and Depression (INCPAD) trial. Participants completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the PEG (a 3-item abbreviated version of the BPI), the short form (SF)-36 pain scale, and a pain global rating of change measure. The global rating was used as the criterion for standardized response mean and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. To assess responsiveness to the trial intervention, we evaluated standardized effect size statistics stratified by trial arm. All measures were responsive to global improvement, discriminated between participants with and without improvement, and detected a significant intervention treatment effect. Short and longer measures were similarly responsive. Also, composite measures that combined pain severity and interference into a single score (BPI total, PEG, SF-36 pain) performed comparably to separate measures of each domain (BPI severity and BPI interference). Perspective: Pain measures as brief as 2 or 3 items that provide a single score are responsive in patients with cancer-related pain. Ultra-brief measures offer a valid and efficient means of assessing and monitoring pain for the clinical management as well as research of cancer-related pain.

KW - assessment

KW - Cancer

KW - diagnosis

KW - measures

KW - pain

KW - psychometrics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864426227&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864426227&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.05.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.05.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 22800982

AN - SCOPUS:84864426227

VL - 13

SP - 764

EP - 772

JO - Journal of Pain

JF - Journal of Pain

SN - 1526-5900

IS - 8

ER -