Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pain outcomes: A brief review of instruments and techniques

  • Published:
Current Pain and Headache Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pain is a difficult outcome to measure due to its multifaceted and subjective nature. The need for selecting proper outcome measures is high because of the increasing demand for scientifically valid demonstrations of treatment efficacy. This article discusses some basic topics in the measurement of pain outcomes and addresses issues such as statistical versus clinical significance, daily home data collection, appropriate length of outcome measurement packets, and the possibility of objective pain measurements. This article also reviews some of the more commonly used tools for measuring pain and pain-related disability. By selecting the proper tools and employing them correctly, we can obtain highly reliable and valid measures of pain outcomes in research and clinical care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Turk DC, Melzack R: Handbook of Pain Assessment. New York: Guilford Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Todd KH: Clinical versus statistical significance in the assessment of pain relief. Ann Emerg Med 1996, 27:439–441.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L, et al.: Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001, 94:149–158.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Farrar JT, Berlin JA, Strom BL: Clinically important changes in acute pain outcome measures: a validation study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003, 25:406–411.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB: Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis 2007, 66(Suppl 3):iii40–iii41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, et al.: Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008, 9:105–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Louis TA, Lavori PW, Bailar JC, et al.: Crossover and self-controlled designs in clinical research. N Engl J Med 1984, 5:24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vickers AJ: How many repeated measures in repeated measures designs? Statistical issues for comparative trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003, 3:22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Experiential Sampling Program. Available at http://www.experience-sampling.org/esp.html. Accessed August 2008.

  10. Wright DB: Making friends with your data: improving how statistics are conducted and reported. Br J Educ Psychol 2003, 73:123–136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al.: Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2005, 113:9–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Melzack R: The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 1987, 30:191–197.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM: Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1994, 19:129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kerns RD, Turk DC, Rudy TE: The West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI). Pain 1985, 23:345–356.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rogers WH, Wittink H, Wagner A, et al.: Assessing individual outcomes during outpatient multidisciplinary chronic pain treatment by means of an augmented SF-36. Pain Med 2000, 1:44–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Li D, Puntillo K, Miaskowski C: A review of objective pain measures for use with critical care adult patients unable to self-report. J Pain 2008, 9:2–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hummel P, van Dijk M: Pain assessment: current status and challenges. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2006, 11:237–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chizh BA, Hobson AR: Using objective markers and imaging in the development of novel treatments of chronic pain. Expert Rev Neurother 2007, 7:443–447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Storm H: Skin conductance and the stress response from heel stick in preterm infants. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2000, 83:F143–F147.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Rainville P, Marchand S: Establishing a link between heart rate and pain in healthy subjects: a gender effect. J Pain 2005, 6:341–347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bossart P, Fosnocht D, Swanson E: Changes in heart rate do not correlate with changes in pain intensity in emergency department patients. J Emerg Med 2007, 32:19–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hellerud BC, Storm H: Skin conductance and behaviour during sensory stimulation of preterm and term infants. Early Hum Develop 2002, 70:35–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Harrison D, Boyce S, Loughnan P, et al.: Skin conductance as a measure of pain and stress in hospitalised infants. Early Hum Develop 2006, 82:603–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ledowski T, Bromilow J, Peach MJ, et al.: Monitoring of skin conductance to assess postoperative pain intensity. Br J Anaesth 2006, 97:862–865.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Schasfoort FC, Formanoy MAG, Bussmann JBJ, et al.: Objective and continuous measurement of peripheral motor indicators of pain in hospitalized infants: a feasibility study. Pain 2008, 137:323–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Okuse K: Pain signaling pathways: from cytokines to ion channels. Int J Biochem 2007, 39:490–496.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Coghill RC, Sang CN, Maisog JA, et al.: Pain intensity processing within the human brain: a bilateral, distributed mechanism. J Neurophysiol 1999, 82:1934–1943.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Harding VR, Williams AC, Richardson PH, et al.: The development of a battery of measures for assessing physical functioning of chronic pain patients. Pain 1994, 58:367–375.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Smeets RJ, Hijdra HJ, Kester AD, et al.: The usability of six physical performance tasks in a rehabilitation population with chronic low back pain. Clin Rehabil 2006, 20:989–998.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stratford PW, Kennedy DM, Woodhouse LJ: Performance measures provide assessments of pain and function in people with advanced osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Phys Ther 2006, 86:1489–1496.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Goodson A, McGregor AH, Douglas J, et al.: Direct, quantitative clinical assessment of hand function: usefulness and reproducibility. Man Ther 2007, 12:144–152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Simmonds MJ, Olson SL, Jones S, et al.: Psychometric characteristics and clinical usefulness of physical performance tests in patients with low back pain. Spine 1998, 23:2412–2421.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ballinger DA, Rintala DH, Hart KA: The relation of shoulder pain and range-of-motion problems to functional limitations, disability, and perceived health of men with spinal cord injury: a multifaceted longitudinal study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000, 81:1575–1581.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Salisbury SK, Choy NL, Nitz J: Shoulder pain, range of motion, and functional motor skills after acute tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003, 84:1480–1485.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Weiner DK, Rudy TE, Morrow L, et al.: The relationship between pain, neuropsychological performance, and physical function in community-dwelling older adults with chronic low back pain. Pain Med 2006, 7:60–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Novy DM, Simmonds MJ, Lee CE: Physical performance tasks: what are the underlying constructs? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002, 83:44–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Moseley GL: Evidence for a direct relationship between cognitive and physical change during an education intervention in people with chronic low back pain. Eur J Pain 2004, 8:39–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Thomas JS, France CR: The relationship between pain-related fear and lumbar flexion during natural recovery from low back pain. Eur Spine J 2008, 17:97–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesia, Division of Pain Management, Stanford University School of Medicine, 780 Welch Road, Suite 208C, Palo Alto, CA, 94304-1573, USA

    Jarred Younger

Authors
  1. Jarred Younger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca McCue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sean Mackey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jarred Younger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Younger, J., McCue, R. & Mackey, S. Pain outcomes: A brief review of instruments and techniques. Current Science Inc 13, 39–43 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-009-0009-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-009-0009-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation