中国全科医学 ›› 2022, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (35): 4453-4461.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0478

• 医学循证 • 上一篇    下一篇

新生儿疼痛评估量表测量学性能的系统评价再评价

沈巧1, 唐语蔓1, 冷虹瑶1, 雷若冰2, 郑显兰1,*()   

  1. 1400014 重庆市,重庆医科大学附属儿童医院护理部 国家儿童健康与疾病临床医学研究中心 儿童发育疾病研究教育部重点实验室 儿科学重庆市重点实验室
    2400014 重庆市,重庆医科大学附属儿童医院儿童卓越证据与指南协同创新实验室
  • 收稿日期:2022-03-15 修回日期:2022-07-15 出版日期:2022-12-15 发布日期:2022-08-18
  • 通讯作者: 郑显兰
  • 沈巧,唐语蔓,冷虹瑶,等.新生儿疼痛评估量表测量学性能的系统评价再评价[J].中国全科医学,2022,25(35):4453-4461. [www.chinagp.net]
    作者贡献:沈巧为主要研究人员,负责此项研究的设计、实施、分析和报告;沈巧、唐语蔓、冷虹瑶和雷若冰负责文献筛选,资料提取和质量评价;沈巧起草了文章初稿;郑显兰作为论文的通信作者和指导专家,负责研究实施的质量控制;所有作者对稿件进行了严格的审阅和修改。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金资助项目(72074038); 2019年重庆市技术创新与应用发展专项面上项目(cstc2019jscx-msxmX0157); 重庆市科技局2022年度重庆英才计划"包干制"项目(cstc2022ycjh-bgzxm0275)

Psychometric Properties of the Pain Assessment Scales in Newborns: an Overview of Systematic Review

SHEN Qiao1, TANG Yuman1, LENG Hongyao1, LEI Ruobing2, ZHENG Xianlan1,*()   

  1. 1Department of Nursing, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University/National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disorders/Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders/Chongqing Key Laboratory of Pediatrics, Chongqing 400014, China
    2Chevidence Lab Child & Adolescent Health, Department of Pediatric Research Institute, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400014, China
  • Received:2022-03-15 Revised:2022-07-15 Published:2022-12-15 Online:2022-08-18
  • Contact: ZHENG Xianlan
  • About author:
    SHEN Q, TANG Y M, LENG H Y, et al. Psychometric properties of the pain assessment scales in newborns: an overview of systematic review[J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25 (35) : 4453-4461.

摘要: 背景 及时、准确评估新生儿疼痛是确保疼痛管理方案安全、有效实施的关键。目前,国内外学者针对不同的新生儿群体和疼痛类型,构建和测试了40多种疼痛评估量表。但是,其测量结果的可靠性和稳定性存在较大差异。并且,现有单项研究或系统评价仅能提供某个量表或量表某种测量性能的零散证据,不利于医护人员的临床决策。 目的 对新生儿疼痛评估量表测量学性能进行系统评价再评价,为临床实践者和研究者选择最佳的疼痛评估量表提供证据支持。 方法 计算机检索中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据知识服务平台、维普网、PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、CINAHL数据库,通过纳入研究的参考文献追溯与本研究相关的文献。纳入有关新生儿疼痛评估量表测量学性能的系统评价。由两名研究者独立进行文献筛选和资料提取,并分别采用澳大利亚乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)循证卫生保健中心对系统评价的方法学质量评价工具、系统评价偏倚风险(ROBIS)工具和PRISMA声明对纳入研究的方法学质量、偏倚风险和报告质量进行评价,进一步依据定性系统评价证据分级工具(CERQual)评价纳入研究的证据质量。 结果 共纳入7篇系统评价。文献质量评价结果显示,4篇研究方法学质量较高,为低偏倚风险;3篇研究方法学质量相对较低,为高偏倚风险。PRISMA评价结果显示,5篇研究报告相对完全(报告完成率>60.00%),1篇研究存在一定报告缺陷(报告完成率为45.95%),1篇研究有严重信息缺失(报告完成率为10.81%)。CERQual评价结果显示,新生儿疼痛评估量表测量性能结局的22条证据中,高级证据2条(9.09%),中级证据8条(36.36%),低级证据9条(40.91%),极低级证据3条(13.64%)。证据综合结果显示,有25种量表用于新生儿疼痛评估时具有良好的内部一致性、评估者间信度、结构效度和可解释性,分别适用于早产儿和/或足月儿的急性疼痛、持续性疼痛、术后疼痛或机械通气性疼痛。 结论 尚无单个疼痛评估量表可用于新生儿所有类型疼痛的评估。推荐根据患儿年龄和疼痛类型等具体的临床情景选择经过验证的评估量表对患儿疼痛进行定期动态评估。并需进一步补充设计合理、方法严谨的高质量研究来检验现有量表测量我国新生儿人群各种类型疼痛时的可靠性和稳定性,探索扩宽其应用范围的可行性。

关键词: 婴儿,新生, 疼痛测定, 量表, 心理测定学, 系统评价再评价

Abstract:

Background

Timely and accurate pain assessment is essential for safe and effective management of pain in neonates. Scholars at home and abroad have developed more than 40 pain assessment scales for different neonatal groups and types of pain. However, the reliability and stability of the outcomes vary significantly. In addition, existing single studies or systematic reviews (SRs) can only provide unsystematic evidence of a particular scale or specific psychometric properties, which is not conducive to clinical decision-making.

Objective

To overview the SRs of psychometric properties of neonatal pain assessment scales, providing clinical practitioners and researchers with evidence for the best pain assessment scale.

Methods

Databases including CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang DATA, VIP, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched for SRs about psychometric properties of neonatal pain assessment scales. By screening the references of the included SRs, their associated studies were found. Two researchers independently performed literature screening, and data extraction, then assessed the methodological quality using the JBI systematic review critical appraisal tool, risk of bias using the ROBIS, the reporting quality using the PRISMA statement, and the evidence quality using CERQual.

Results

A total of seven SRs were included. According to the JBI and ROBIS tools, four SRs were of high quality and had a low risk of bias, while three were of relatively low quality and had an increased risk of bias. With the PRISMA checklist, 5 SRs were fairly complete with over 60% of report completion rate (RCR) , 1 SR had certain reporting deficiencies with 45.95% of RCR, and 1 SR had serious information missing with 10.81% of RCR. The results of CERQual showed that there were 22 pieces of evidence in total, including two pieces of high quality (9.09%) , eight pieces of moderate quality (36.36%) , nine pieces of low quality (40.91%) , and three pieces of critically low quality (13.64%) . A synthesis of evidence showed that there were 25 scales with good internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, construct validity, and interpretability. Those scales could be used to measure acute pain, persistent pain, postoperative pain, or mechanically ventilated pain in preterm and/or term infants.

Conclusion

No single pain assessment scale is available to assess all types of pain in neonates. It is recommended that the selection of validated scales for periodic dynamic pain assessment in neonates should be based on clinical situations such as age and pain type. More high-quality, well-designed studies are needed to examine the reliability and stability of the existing scales for measuring different kinds of pain in neonates in China and to explore the feasibility of expanding their applications.

Key words: Infant, newborn, Pain measurement, Scales, Psychometrics, Overview of systematic review