4.4 Review

Pain assessment in cerebral palsy: a systematic review of measurement properties and evaluation using the COSMIN checklist

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 910-920

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1783000

关键词

Cerebral palsy; pain; consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurements instruments; patient-reported outcome measures; measurement properties; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic literature review examines the methodological quality of pain assessment instruments in individuals with cerebral palsy. The study finds limited and low-quality evidence for the measurement properties of these instruments. Further research is needed following the COSMIN recommendations.
Purpose:This systematic literature review aims to analyse the methodological quality of instruments available to assess pain in Cerebral Palsy (CP), according to the COSMIN guidelines and checklist. Materials and methods:Electronic literature searches were conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PEdro, Scielo, Scopus and Academic Search Complete (EBSCO host) for articles on measurement properties of self-report, proxy or observational instruments. Results:A total of 14 instruments were identified. Of these, 8 were self-report instruments, 4 were observational instruments and 2 could be used both as self-report or proxy-report. The quality of the manuscripts was inadequate or doubtful in 45.5%, adequate in 15.9% and very good in 38.6% of the cases. No instrument was assessed for all the properties recommended by COSMIN. The quality of the evidence for the measurement properties of the pain assessment instruments ranged from very low to moderate. Conclusions:There is scarce and low-quality evidence on the measurement properties of instruments used to assess pain in individuals with cerebral palsy. Further research is needed designed in line with the COSMIN recommendations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据