Advertisement

Harmonization of pain scores — interesting and relevant findings

  • J. Dekker
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Tel: +316 55 72 68 87.
    Affiliations
    Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Psychiatry and Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Search for articles by this author
Published:September 08, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2022.08.017
      Imagine an international collaborative project preparing a mission to the Moon, with each project partner using its own system to express velocity, length, weight, etc. — the project is inevitably doomed to failure. Yet this is exactly what we do in the health sciences — we use a wide range of measures for pain, functional status, fatigue, depression, and other health outcomes. In the natural sciences, the problem of countries and cities using their own systems of measurement was largely solved by the introduction of the International System of Units (SI)
      International Bureau of Weights and Measures
      The International System of Units (SI).
      , which has greatly facilitated scientific communication and exchange. Correspondingly, in the health sciences significant progress is being made in standardizing what to measure, how to measure, and in which units to measure

      International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). [Available from:www.ichom.org.].

      • Williamson P.R.
      • Altman D.G.
      • Bagley H.
      • Barnes K.L.
      • Blazeby J.M.
      • Brookes S.T.
      • et al.
      The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.

      Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments. [Available from:www.cosmin.nl.].

      • Terwee C.B.
      • Bot S.D.
      • de Boer M.R.
      • van der Windt D.A.
      • Knol D.L.
      • Dekker J.
      • et al.
      Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.
      • Alonso J.
      • Bartlett S.J.
      • Rose M.
      • Aaronson N.K.
      • Chaplin J.E.
      • Efficace F.
      • et al.
      The case for an international patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) initiative.

      OMERACT. [Available from: https://omeract.org/.].

      . Yet the problem of heterogeneity still exists, and this situation is likely to continue for some time.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • International Bureau of Weights and Measures
        The International System of Units (SI).
        Sèvres Cedex: Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, 2019
      1. International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). [Available from:www.ichom.org.].

        • Williamson P.R.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Bagley H.
        • Barnes K.L.
        • Blazeby J.M.
        • Brookes S.T.
        • et al.
        The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.
        Trials. 2017; 18: 280
      2. Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments. [Available from:www.cosmin.nl.].

        • Terwee C.B.
        • Bot S.D.
        • de Boer M.R.
        • van der Windt D.A.
        • Knol D.L.
        • Dekker J.
        • et al.
        Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 34-42
        • Alonso J.
        • Bartlett S.J.
        • Rose M.
        • Aaronson N.K.
        • Chaplin J.E.
        • Efficace F.
        • et al.
        The case for an international patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) initiative.
        Health Qual Life Outcome. 2013; 11: 210
      3. OMERACT. [Available from: https://omeract.org/.].

        • Fortier I.
        • Raina P.
        • Van den Heuvel E.R.
        • Griffith L.E.
        • Craig C.
        • Saliba M.
        • et al.
        Maelstrom Research guidelines for rigorous retrospective data harmonization.
        Int J Epidemiol. 2017; 46: 103-105
      4. Georgopoulos V, Smith S, McWilliams DF, Steultjens MPM, Williams A, Price A, et al. Harmonising knee pain patient-reported outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and individual participant data (IPD). Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2022 Sep 8;S1063-4584(22)00829-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2022.08.011. Online ahead of print.

        • Tubach F.
        • Ravaud P.
        • Baron G.
        • Falissard B.
        • Logeart I.
        • Bellamy N.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 2005; 64: 34-37