Parental preferences on diagnostic imaging tests for paediatric appendicitis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine parental preferences for diagnostic imaging tests (DITs) for paediatric appendicitis, to rank the attributes impacting the DIT selection and to identify DIT attributes that would cause parents to switch their DIT. METHODS: Parents of children who had an abdominal ultrasound (US) for right lower quadrant pain were interviewed. Two DITs were compared at a time, parents were asked to indicate their preferred test and to rank its attributes according to the impact each attribute had on their selection. The strength of their preference for the chosen DIT was measured by systematically adjusting attributes of the chosen DIT until the parent changed their choice. RESULTS: Fifty parents were interviewed. For US versus CT, more parents preferred US (68%, P=0.02) with higher importance ranks for cancer risk (P<0.0001), test accuracy (P=0.04), pain during test (P=0.3), and scan length (P<0.0001); and lower ranks for sedation (P=0.02), intravenous (IV) (P<0.02), and oral contrast (P=0.06). For US versus MRI, parents preferred MRI (78%, P<0.0001) with higher importance ranks for accuracy (P=0.2), pain during test (P=0.06), and scan length (P=0.06); and lower for noise (P<0.0001), claustrophobia (P<0.0001), use of IV contrast (P=0.06), and sedation (P=0.2). CONCLUSION: US and MRI were the DIT preferred by parents for the investigation of acute paediatric appendicitis.

Characteristics of chronic noncancer pain patients assessed with the opioid risk tool in a Canadian tertiary care pain clinic.

BACKGROUND: The Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) is a screening instrument for assessing the risk of opioid-related aberrant behavior in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare patient characteristics documented in the original ORT study with those identified in CNCP patients assessed using a physician-administered ORT in a tertiary care pain clinic in Toronto, Canada. METHODOLOGY: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study of 322 consecutive new patients referred over 12 months. Data extraction included ORT scores, demographics, pain ratings, opioid, and other medication use at point of entry, diagnosis, and other variables. Characteristics were compared with those described in the original ORT study. RESULTS: The total mean ORT scores of patients in this study were related to several demographic (gender, age, marital status, and country of birth) and nondemographic variables (employment status, cigarette smoking, and contribution of biomedical and/or psychological factors to presentation). Prevalence of characteristics noted in this patient sample differed substantially from that found in Webster and Webster as the basis for ORT scores. CONCLUSION: Significant differences existed between this study population and the patient sample from which the ORT was derived. Limitations of this study are discussed. We concur with the authors of the original study that the ORT may not be applicable in different pain populations and settings. Based on our findings, we encourage caution in interpreting the ORT in general CNCP settings until further studies are performed.

Use of a modified Comprehensive Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (CPEQ): characteristics and functional status of patients on entry to a tertiary care pain clinic.

BACKGROUND: With increasing knowledge of chronic pain, clinicians have attempted to assess chronic pain patients with lengthy assessment tools. OBJECTIVES: To describe the functional and emotional status of patients presenting to a tertiary care pain clinic; to assess the reliability and validity of a diagnostic classification system for chronic pain patients modelled after the Multidimensional Pain Inventory; to provide psychometric data on a modified Comprehensive Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (CPEQ); and to evaluate the relationship between the modified CPEQ construct scores and clusters with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition - Text Revision Pain Disorder diagnoses. METHODS: Data on 300 new patients over the course of nine months were collected using standardized assessment procedures plus a modified CPEQ at the Comprehensive Pain Program, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario. RESULTS: Cluster analysis of the modified CPEQ revealed three patient profiles, labelled Adaptive Copers, Dysfunctional, and Interpersonally Distressed, which closely resembled those previously reported. The distribution of modified CPEQ construct T scores across profile subtypes was similar to that previously reported for the original CPEQ. A novel finding was that of a strong relationship between the modified CPEQ clusters and constructs with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition - Text Revision Pain Disorder diagnoses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The CPEQ, either the original or modified version, yields reproducible results consistent with the results of other studies. This technique may usefully classify chronic pain patients, but more work is needed to determine the meaning of the CPEQ clusters, what psychological or biomedical variables are associated with CPEQ constructs or clusters, and whether this instrument may assist in treatment planning or predict response to treatment.