A range of outcome measures across various domains are used to evaluate change following an intervention in clinical trials on chronic neuropathic pain (NeP). However, to capture a real change in the variable of interest, the psychometric properties of a particular measure should demonstrate appropriate methodological quality. Various outcome measures in the domains of pain and physical functioning have been used in the literature for NeP, for which individual properties (eg, reliability/validity) have been reported. To date, there is no definitive synthesis of evidence on the psychometric properties of those outcome measures; thus, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the methodological quality [COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines] of studies that evaluated psychometric properties of pain and physical functioning outcome measures used for NeP.
Specific MeSH/keywords related to 3 areas (pain and/or physical functioning, psychometric properties, and NeP) were used to retrieve relevant studies (English language) in key electronic databases (MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus, AMED, and Web of Science) from database inception-July 2012. Articles retrieval/screening and quality analysis (COSMIN) were carried out by 2 independent reviewers.
Twenty-four pain and thirty-seven physical functioning outcome measures were identified, varying in methodological quality from poor-excellent.
Although a variety of pain and physical functioning outcome measures have been reported in the literature, few have demonstrate methodologically strong psychometric properties. Thus, future research is required to further investigate the psychometric properties of existing pain and physical functioning outcome measures used for clinical and research purposes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2015.
All research outputs
#7,637,636
of 24,542,484 outputs
Outputs from Pain Practice
#404
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,165
of 268,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pain Practice
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,542,484 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
