基于COSMIN指南对中国慢性疼痛患者恐动症评估工具的系统评价  

The assessment tools for kinesiophobia in Chinese patients with chronic pain based on the COSMIN guidelines:a systematic review

作　　者：孙羽健 周越 戴雨 潘宇帆 肖益 余雨枫[1] SUN Yujian;ZHOU Yue;DAI Yu;PAN Yufan;XIAO Yi;YU Yufeng(School of Nursing,Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Chengdu 611137,China)

机构地区：[1]成都中医药大学护理学院,成都611137

出　　处：《数理医药学杂志》2024年第6期431-438,共8页Journal of Mathematical Medicine

摘　　要：目的系统评价中国慢性疼痛患者恐动症评估工具的方法学和测量属性质量,为临床工作人员工具选择提供参考依据。方法检索中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国知网、万方、维普、PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、The Cochrane Library,搜集关于慢性疼痛患者恐动症评估工具的研究,检索时限为建库至2024年3月。基于健康测量工具选择的共识标准(Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments,COSMIN)指南对纳入研究中的评估工具进行质量评价。结果共纳入10项研究并构建13种恐动症评估工具。2种评估工具的内容效度为“充分”,3种为“不充分”,其余均为“不确定”;所有评估工具均使用因子分析法评价结构效度,其中5种无法提供具体数值,因此测量属性为“不充分”,其余均为“不确定”;12种评估工具评价了内部一致性,方法学质量评价为“良”,测量属性为“充分”。最终1种评估工具为A级推荐、10种为B级推荐、2种为C级推荐。结论FABQ-HK测量属性最好且推荐等级最高,但鉴于海峡两岸语言习惯等方面的差异,为更全面地评估其有效性,需收集更多关于该评估工具在内地人群中的研究证据。Objective To systematically evaluate the methodological and measurement properties quality of kinesiophobia assessment tools in Chinese patients with chronic pain,and to provide a reference for clinical staff to choose the tools.Methods CBM,CNKI,WanFang Data,VIP,PubMed,Embase,Web of Science,and The Cochrane Library were searched to collect studies on assessment tools for kinesiophobia in patients with chronic pain from the construction of the databases to March 2024.Quality evaluation of assessment tools in the included studies was performed based on the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments(COSMIN)guidelines.Results A total of 10 studies were included and 13 kinesiophobia assessment tools were constructed.Two assessment tools had“adequate”content validity,three had“inadequate”content validity,and the rest were“uncertain”.All assessment tools were evaluated for construct validity using factor analysis, five of which could not provide specific values and therefore had “inadequate” measurement properties, and the rest had “uncertain” measurement properties. Twelve assessment tools were evaluated for internal consistency, with methodological quality of “good” and measurement properties of “adequate”. In the end, one assessment tool was recommended at level A, ten were recommended at level B and two were recommended at level C. Conclusion The FABQ-HK has the best measurement property and the highest level of recommendation, but in view of the differences in language habits between the two sides of the Chinese Taiwan Strait, in order to evaluate its validity more comprehensively, it is necessary to collect more research evidence on this assessment tool in Chinese mainland populations.

关 键 词：慢性疼痛 恐动症 测量属性 COSMIN指南 系统评价 

分 类 号：TP3[自动化与计算机技术—计算机科学与技术]