Measurement Properties of the Brief Pain Inventory- Short Form (BPI-SF) and the Revised Short McGill Pain Questionnaire-Version-2 (SF-MPQ-2) in Painrelated Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review Protocol

Document Type : SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Authors

1 Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

2 Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada---- Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph’s Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada

3 School of Rehabilitation Science, McMasters University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

4 Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph’s Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Background: The Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) and Revised Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Version-2
(SF-MPQ-2) are generic pain assessment tools used in research and practice for pain assessment in musculoskeletal
(MSK) conditions. A comprehensive review that systematically analyses their measurement properties in MSK conditions
has not been performed. This review protocol describes the steps that will be taken to locate, critically appraise, compare
and summarize clinical measurement research on the BPI-SF and SF-MPQ-2 in pain-related MSK conditions.
Methods: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus will be searched for publications that examine the measurement
properties of the Brief Pain Inventory and Revised Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Version-2. Two reviewers
will independently screen citations (title, abstract and full text) and extract relevant data. The extensiveness, rigor,
and quality of measurement property reports will be examined with a structured measurement studies appraisal tool,
and with the updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)
guidelines. Findings will be descriptively summarized, and when possible, a meta-analysis will be performed.
Discussion: This review will summarize and compare the current level of evidence on the measurement properties of the
BPI-SF and SF-MPQ-2 in a spectrum of musculoskeletal conditions. We expect clinicians/researchers dealing with MSK
conditions to have synthesized evidence that informs their decision making and preferences. In addition, the review hopes
to identify gaps and determine priorities for future research with or on the BPI-SF and SF-MPQ-2 in MSK conditions.
Level of evidence: Not Applicable

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

LM, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN methodology for
systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome
measures (PROMs). User Manual. 2018; 78(1):6-63.
14. Prinsen CA, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick
DL, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic
reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual
Life Res. 2018; 27(5):1147-57.
15. MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, Blanchard A,
Etruw E, McAlpine C, et al. Measurement properties
of the neck disability index: a systematic review. J
Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009; 39(5):400-17.
16. Packham T, MacDermid JC, Henry J, Bain J. A systematic
review of psychometric evaluations of outcome
assessments for complex regional pain syndrome.
Disabil Rehabil. 2012; 34(13):1059-69.
17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses:
the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;
6(7):e1000097.
18. Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, de Vet HC.
Development of a methodological PubMed search
filter for finding studies on measurement properties
of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;
18(8):1115-23.
19. Law MC, MacDermid J. Evidence-based rehabilitation:
a guide to practice. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Slack
Incooperated; 2008.
20. Mehta SP, MacDermid JC, Richardson J, MacIntyre NJ,
Grewal R. A systematic review of the measurement
properties of the patient-rated wrist evaluation. J
Orthop Sport Phys Ther. 2015; 45(4):289-98.
21. Mokkink LB, de Vet HC, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL,
Alonso J, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN risk of bias
checklist for systematic reviews of patientreported
outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;
27(5):1171-9.
22. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt
DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were
proposed for measurement properties of health
status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;
60(1):34-42.
23. Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P,
Clarke M, et al. How to select outcome measurement
instruments for outcomes included in a “Core
Outcome Set” - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;
17(1):449.
24. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford
PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached
international consensus on taxonomy, terminology,
and definitions of measurement properties for healthrelated
patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol.
2010; 63(7):737-45.
1. Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, Woolf A, Bain C, et
al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from
the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum
Dis. 2014; 73(6):968-74.
2. Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators.
Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence,
and years lived with disability for 301 acute and
chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries,
1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global
Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;
386(9995):743-800.
3. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D,
Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, et al. Interpreting the clinical
importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain
clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain.
2008; 9(2):105-21.
4. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could
help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013; 346(1):f167.
5. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use
of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore.
1994; 23(2):129-38.
6. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Revicki DA, Harding G, Coyne
KS, Peirce-Sandner S, et al. Development and initial
validation of an expanded and revised version of the
Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2).
Pain. 2009; 144(1):35-42.
7. Kachooei AR, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Erfani-Sayyar
R, Salehi M, Salimi E, Razi S. Short form-mcgill
pain questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2): a cross-cultural
adaptation and validation study of the persian version
in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arch bone Jt Surg.
2015; 3(1):45-50.
8. Cleeland CS. The brief pain inventory user guide.
Houston, TX: The University of Texas MD Anderson
Cancer Center; 2009.
9. Chen TH, Li L, Kochen MM. A systematic review: how
to choose appropriate health-related quality of life
(HRQOL) measures in routine general practice? J
Zhejiang Univ Sci. 2005; 6(9):936-40.
10. Robinson-Papp J, George MC, Dorfman D, Simpson
DM. Barriers to chronic pain measurement: a
qualitative study of patient perspectives. Pain Med.
2015; 16(7):1256-64.
11. Chapman JR, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Bransford
RJ, DeVine J, McGirt MJ, et al. Evaluating common
outcomes for measuring treatment success for
chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;
36(21 Suppl):S54-68.
12. Ramasamy A, Martin ML, Blum SI, Liedgens H, Argoff
C, Freynhagen R, et al. Assessment of patient-reported
outcome instruments to assess chronic low back pain.
Pain Med. 2017; 18(6):1098-110.
13. Mokkink LB, Prinsen C, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter 
LM, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN methodology for
systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome
measures (PROMs). User Manual. 2018; 78(1):6-63.
14. Prinsen CA, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick
DL, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic
reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual
Life Res. 2018; 27(5):1147-57.
15. MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, Blanchard A,
Etruw E, McAlpine C, et al. Measurement properties
of the neck disability index: a systematic review. J
Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009; 39(5):400-17.
16. Packham T, MacDermid JC, Henry J, Bain J. A systematic
review of psychometric evaluations of outcome
assessments for complex regional pain syndrome.
Disabil Rehabil. 2012; 34(13):1059-69.
17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses:
the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;
6(7):e1000097.
18. Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, de Vet HC.
Development of a methodological PubMed search
filter for finding studies on measurement properties
of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;
18(8):1115-23.
19. Law MC, MacDermid J. Evidence-based rehabilitation:
a guide to practice. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Slack
Incooperated; 2008.
20. Mehta SP, MacDermid JC, Richardson J, MacIntyre NJ,
Grewal R. A systematic review of the measurement
properties of the patient-rated wrist evaluation. J
Orthop Sport Phys Ther. 2015; 45(4):289-98.
21. Mokkink LB, de Vet HC, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL,
Alonso J, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN risk of bias
checklist for systematic reviews of patientreported
outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;
27(5):1171-9.
22. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt
DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were
proposed for measurement properties of health
status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;
60(1):34-42.
23. Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P,
Clarke M, et al. How to select outcome measurement
instruments for outcomes included in a “Core
Outcome Set” - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;
17(1):449.
24. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford
PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached
international consensus on taxonomy, terminology,
and definitions of measurement properties for healthrelated
patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol.
2010; 63(7):737-45.
 
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 8, Issue 2
March 2020
Pages 131-141

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 December 2018
  • Revise Date: 23 December 2019
  • Accept Date: 19 January 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics