4.7 Article

The Relationship between Numbness and Quality of Life

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041324

关键词

numbness; painless; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we conducted an epidemiological survey to analyze the relationship between painless numbness and quality of life (QOL). The results indicate that painless numbness affects QOL and that QOL decreases as the intensity of numbness increases. Additionally, numbness in the feet and numbness among the young may have a lesser impact on QOL. This study is of great significance in the field of numbness research.
Background: Numbness is a term commonly used in clinical practice to describe an abnormal sensory experience that is produced by a stimulus or is present even without a stimulus. However, there is still much that remains obscure in this field, and also, few reports have focused on its symptoms. In addition, while pain itself is known to have a significant impact on quality of life (QOL), the relationship between numbness and QOL is often unclear. Therefore, we conducted an epidemiological survey and analyzed the relationship between painless numbness and QOL, using type, location, and age as influencing factors, respectively. Methods: A nationwide epidemiological survey was conducted by mail using a survey panel designed by the Nippon Research Center. Questionnaires were sent to 10,000 randomly selected people aged 18 and over from all over Japan. Out of the 5682 people who responded, the relationship between numbness and QOL was analyzed using the EuroQol 5 Dimension-3L (EQ5D-3L) for patients who are currently experiencing painless numbness. Findings: The results suggest that painless numbness affects QOL and that QOL decreases as its intensity increases. Furthermore, the two factors of numbness of feet and numbness among the young may be less likely to affect QOL. This study may be of great significance in the field of numbness research.

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

4.7
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