Comparable Minimally Important Differences and Responsiveness of Brief Pain Inventory and PEG Pain Scales across 6 Trials - 12/12/23
Abstract |
The 3-item pain intensity (P), interference with the enjoyment of life (E), and interference with general activity (G), or PEG, has become one of the most widely used measures of pain severity and interference. The minimally important differences (MID) and responsiveness of the PEG are essential metrics for solidifying its role in research and clinical care. The current study aims to establish the MID and responsiveness of the PEG by synthesizing data from 1,710 participants across 6 controlled trials. MIDs were estimated using absolute score changes among individuals reporting their pain was “a little better” on a retrospective global change anchor as well as distribution-based estimates using standard deviation thresholds and 1 and 2 standard errors of measurement. Responsiveness was assessed using standardized response means, area under the curve, and treatment effect sizes. MID estimates for the PEG ranged from 0.60 to 1.1 when using 0.35 SD, and 0.78 to 1.22 using 1 standard error of measurement. MID estimates using the global anchor had somewhat more variability but most estimates ranged from 1.0 to 1.75. Responsiveness effect sizes were generally large (>.80) for standardized response means and moderate (>.50) for treatment effect. Similarly, the most area under the curve values demonstrated an acceptable level of scale responsiveness (≥.70). Importantly, MID estimates and responsiveness of the PEG and BPI scales were largely comparable when aggregating data across trials. Our synthesis indicates that 1 point is a reasonable MID estimate on these 0- to 10-point pain scales, with 2 points being an upper bound.
Perspective |
This article synthesizes data from 6 clinical trials to establish the minimally important difference (MID) and responsiveness of the 3-item PEG pain scale. The PEG demonstrated good responsiveness, and 1 to 2 points proved to be reasonable estimates for the lower and upper bounds of the MID.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Highlights |
• | Six RCTs were used to establish 1 to 2 points on the PEG as the lower and upper bounds of an MID. |
• | MID estimates and responsiveness of the PEG and BPI scales were largely comparable. |
• | Results provide guidance in determining meaningful improvement for patient care and future trials. |
Key Words : PEG, Brief pain inventory, Pain, Psychometrics, Measurement
Plan
| Supplementary data accompanying this article are available online at www.jpain.org and www.sciencedirect.com. |
|
| Address reprint requests to David E. Reed, II, PhD, Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, VA Puget Sound Health Care, 1660 South Columbian Way, S-152, Seattle, WA 98108. E-mail: david.reed7@va.gov |
|
| The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government. |
Vol 25 - N° 1
P. 142-152 - janvier 2024 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
