Dataset Information

Development of a screening tool to predict the risk of chronic pain and disability following musculoskeletal trauma: protocol for a prospective observational study in the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Pain is an expected and appropriate experience following traumatic musculoskeletal injury. By contrast, chronic pain and disability are unhelpful yet common sequelae of trauma-related injuries. Presently, the mechanisms that underlie the transition from acute to chronic disabling post-traumatic pain are not fully understood. Such knowledge would facilitate the development and implementation of precision rehabilitation approaches that match interventions to projected risk of recovery, with the aim of preventing poor long-term outcomes. The aim of this study is to identify a set of predictive factors to identify patients at risk of developing ongoing post-traumatic pain and disability following acute musculoskeletal trauma. To achieve this, we will use a unique and comprehensive combination of patient-reported outcome measures, psychophysical testing and biomarkers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A prospective observational study will recruit two temporally staggered cohorts (n=250?each cohort; at least 10 cases per candidate predictor) of consecutive patients with acute musculoskeletal trauma aged ?16 years, who are emergency admissions into a Major Trauma Centre in the United Kingdom, with an episode inception defined as the traumatic event. The first cohort will identify candidate predictors to develop a screening tool to predict development of chronic and disabling pain, and the second will allow evaluation of the predictive performance of the tool (validation). The outcome being predicted is an individual's absolute risk of poor outcome measured at a 6-month follow-up using the Chronic Pain Grade Scale (poor outcome ?grade II). Candidate predictors encompass the four primary mechanisms of pain: nociceptive (eg, injury location), neuropathic (eg, painDETECT), inflammatory (biomarkers) and nociplastic (eg, quantitative sensory testing). Concurrently, patient-reported outcome measures will assess general health and psychosocial factors (eg, pain self-efficacy). Risk of poor outcome will be calculated using multiple variable regression analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Approved by the NHS Research Ethics Committee (17/WA/0421).

SUBMITTER: Rushton AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5931282 | biostudies-other | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a screening tool to predict the risk of chronic pain and disability following musculoskeletal trauma: protocol for a prospective observational study in the United Kingdom.

Rushton Alison B AB Evans David W DW Evans David W DW Middlebrook Nicola N Heneghan Nicola R NR Small Charlotte C Lord Janet J Patel Jaimin M JM Falla Deborah D

BMJ open 20180428 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Pain is an expected and appropriate experience following traumatic musculoskeletal injury. By contrast, chronic pain and disability are unhelpful yet common sequelae of trauma-related injuries. Presently, the mechanisms that underlie the transition from acute to chronic disabling post-traumatic pain are not fully understood. Such knowledge would facilitate the development and implementation of precision rehabilitation approaches that match interventions to projected risk of ...[more]

PMID: 29705750

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPost-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS), pain and disability frequently co-occur following traumatic injuries. Although the coexistence of these symptoms is common, the relation between these symptoms and the impact on longer-term outcome remains poorly understood. This systematic review aims to determine the role of PTSS on the development of chronic pain and/or pain-related disability following musculoskeletal trauma.Methods/analysisThis protocol is developed and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocol. The review will include studies that recruited individuals aged ≥16 years sustaining any traumatic event that resulted in one or more musculoskeletal injuries and where a recognised measure for the presence of PTSS symptoms, pain and disability using either validated questionnaires or symptom checklists was employed. The following citation databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, ZETOC, Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar, as well as reference lists from key journals and grey literature, will be searched from inception to 31 November 2021. Two independent reviewers will search, screen studies, extract data and assess risk of bias. The relationship of PTSS, pain and pain-related disability by injury type and severity will be estimated with 95% CI. If possible, study results will be pooled into a meta-analysis. However, if heterogeneity between studies is high, data analyses will be presented descriptively. The overall quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required for this systematic review since only data from existing studies will be used. This review is expected to provide a better understanding of the factors associated with PTSS, pain and pain-related disability following musculoskeletal trauma, and help with the development of targeted therapeutic interventions. Results of this review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and via national and international conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42021285243.

Project description:BackgroundThroughout the literature, pain burden has been assessed by asking different questions, often cross-sectionally, different populations of interest. We know little about pain re-occurrence and how to translate knowledge between pain questions within the population of interest. We aimed to estimate the burden of musculoskeletal pain by estimating prevalence, incidence rates, and re-occurrence risk of back, hand, hip, knee, and foot pain using different questions from UK population-based samples and predict the number of affected individuals in the UK in 2030.MethodsWe used two UK population-representative studies, with two eight-year-apart follow-ups and two pain questions assessing recent pain episodes and often troubled pain when walking. We estimated prevalence, 8-year incidence rates, and 8-year pain re-occurrence risk for women and men aged 50 years and older and the relation between the two pain questions.ResultsAmong UK individuals older than 50 years, the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain episode was 20%-50%, and the incidence was 20-40/1,000 person-years, while the prevalence of pain when walking was 10%-25%, and the incidence was 6-12/1,000 person-years. The most prevalent musculoskeletal pain types were back and knee pain; of five women experiencing back or knee pain episodes, three are expected to be often troubled by pain. Hip and foot pain had similar estimates in both questions. Hand pain peaked in women aged 50-65 years. Women had higher prevalence and incidence rates, but men had higher 8-year re-occurrence risk of all types of musculoskeletal pain. Reporting a pain episode was associated with two times higher risk, but often troubled by pain when walking was associated with four to seven times times higher risk of the same pain in 8 years. Women and men with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥27 kg/m2 were twice as likely to experience musculoskeletal pain than those with BMI<27 kg/m2. In 2030, we expect 2-7 million people older than 50 years in the United Kingdom to seek site-specific musculoskeletal pain-focused healthcare.ConclusionsIn individuals older than 50 years, the experience of musculoskeletal pain at least doubles the chance of experiencing it again. Women report musculoskeletal pain more often, but men report more persistent pain. Musculoskeletal pain presents a significant burden to public health.

Project description:Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) are partnerships between healthcare organisations and universities in England. Their mission is to generate novel treatments, technologies, diagnostics and other interventions that increase the country's international competitiveness, to rapidly translate these innovations into benefits for patients, and to improve efficiency and reduce waste in healthcare. As NIHR Oxford BRC (Oxford BRC) enters its third 5-year funding period, we seek to (1) apply the evidence base on how best to support the various partnerships in this large, multi-stakeholder research system and (2) research how these partnerships play out in a new, ambitious programme of translational research.Organisational case study, informed by the principles of action research. A cross-cutting theme, 'Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation' has been established with multiple sub-themes (drug development, device development, business support and commercialisation, research methodology and statistics, health economics, bioethics, patient and public involvement and engagement, knowledge translation, and education and training) to support individual BRC research themes and generate cross-theme learning. The 'Partnerships' theme will support the BRC's goals by facilitating six types of partnership (with patients and citizens, clinical services, industry, across the NIHR infrastructure, across academic disciplines, and with policymakers and payers) through a range of engagement platforms and activities. We will develop a longitudinal progress narrative centred around exemplar case studies, and apply theoretical models from innovation studies (Triple Helix), sociology of science (Mode 2 knowledge production) and business studies (Value Co-creation). Data sources will be the empirical research studies within individual BRC research themes (who will apply separately for NHS ethics approval), plus documentary analysis and interviews and ethnography with research stakeholders. This study has received ethics clearance through the University of Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee.We anticipate that this work will add significant value to Oxford BRC. We predict accelerated knowledge translation; closer alignment of the innovation process with patient priorities and the principles of responsible, ethical research; reduction in research waste; new knowledge about the governance and activities of multi-stakeholder research partnerships and the contexts in which they operate; and capacity-building that reflects the future needs of a rapidly-evolving health research system.

Project description:BackgroundThe Episodic Disability Questionnaire (EDQ) is a generic 35-item patient-reported outcome measure of presence, severity and episodic nature of disability. We assessed the measurement properties of the Episodic Disability Questionnaire (EDQ) with adults living with HIV.MethodsWe conducted a measurement study with adults living with HIV in eight clinical settings in Canada, Ireland, United Kingdom, and United States. We electronically administered the EDQ followed by three reference measures (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule; Patient Health Questionnaire; Social Support Scale) and a demographic questionnaire. We administered the EDQ only 1 week later. We assessed the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha; > 0.7 acceptable), and test-retest reliability (Intra Class Correlation Coefficient; > 0.7 acceptable). We estimated required change in EDQ domain scores to be 95% certain that a change was not due to measurement error (Minimum Detectable Change (MDC95%)). We evaluated construct validity by assessing 36 primary hypotheses of relationships between EDQ scores and scores on the reference measures (> 75% hypotheses confirmed indicated validity).ResultsThree hundred fifty nine participants completed the questionnaires at time point 1, of which 321 (89%) completed the EDQ approximately 1 week later. Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency ranged from 0.84 (social domain) to 0.91 (day domain) for the EDQ severity scale, and 0.72 (uncertainty domain) to 0.88 (day domain) for the EDQ presence scale, and 0.87 (physical, cognitive, mental-emotional domains) to 0.89 (uncertainty domain) for the EDQ episodic scale. ICCs for test-retest reliability ranged from 0.79 (physical domain) to 0.88 (day domain) for the EDQ severity scale and from 0.71 (uncertainty domain) to 0.85 (day domain) for the EDQ presence scale. Highest precision was demonstrated in the severity scale for each domain (MDC95% range: 19-25 out of 100), followed by the presence (MDC95% range: 37-54) and episodic scales (MDC95% range:44-76). Twenty-nine of 36 (81%) construct validity hypotheses were confirmed.ConclusionsThe EDQ possesses internal consistency reliability, construct validity, and test-retest reliability, with limited precision when administered electronically with adults living with HIV across in clinical settings in four countries. Given the measurement properties, the EDQ can be used for group level comparisons for research and program evaluation in adults living with HIV.

Dataset Information

Development of a screening tool to predict the risk of chronic pain and disability following musculoskeletal trauma: protocol for a prospective observational study in the United Kingdom.

Publications

Development of a screening tool to predict the risk of chronic pain and disability following musculoskeletal trauma: protocol for a prospective observational study in the United Kingdom.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets