全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Phenotyping Chronic Pelvic Pain Based on Latent Class Modeling of Physical Examination

DOI: 10.1155/2013/891301

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Introduction. Defining clinical phenotypes based on physical examination is required for clarifying heterogeneous disorders such as chronic pelvic pain (CPP). The objective of this study was to determine the number of classes within 4 examinable regions and then establish threshold and optimal exam criteria for the classes discovered. Methods. A total of 476 patients meeting the criteria for CPP were examined using pain pressure threshold (PPT) algometry and standardized numeric scale (NRS) pain ratings at 30 distinct sites over 4 pelvic regions. Exploratory factor analysis, latent profile analysis, and ROC curves were then used to identify classes, optimal examination points, and threshold scores. Results. Latent profile analysis produced two classes for each region: high and low pain groups. The optimal examination sites (and high pain minimum thresholds) were for the abdominal wall region: the pair at the midabdomen (PPT threshold depression of > 2); vulvar vestibule region: 10:00 position (NRS > 2); pelvic floor region: puborectalis (combined NRS > 6); vaginal apex region: uterosacral ligaments (combined NRS > 8). Conclusion. Physical examination scores of patients with CPP are best categorized into two classes: high pain and low pain. Standardization of the physical examination in CPP provides both researchers and general gynecologists with a validated technique. 1. Introduction Establishing phenotypes for clinical conditions is a fundamental step in the development of diagnostic criteria, which are required for coherent research and evidence based clinical care [1]. From the categorization of fetal heart rate patterns to the description of pelvic organ prolapse, a validated nomenclature allows an apples-to-apples comparison of research studies and also lets clinicians translate research findings into practice by clearly describing a clinical condition in terms of objective findings. Chronic pelvic pain is an area of gynecology sorely in need of evidence based phenotypes [2]. The current phenotyping approaches are primarily symptom based and limited to urologic pain [3]. The challenges in this field are many and varied [4]. Since pain is subjective, an easily replicated standardized examination becomes even more important. How to perform the exam, which points to examine, and where to set thresholds between incidental pain and significant pain are all problems faced by clinicians on a daily basis [5]. Patients also are frustrated by a lack of uniformity in describing their condition and are hindered by incomplete evaluations [6]. Phenotyping

References

[1]  J. M. Wu, R. M. Ward, K. L. Allen-Brady, et al., “Phenotyping clinical disorders: lessons learned from pelvic organ prolapse,” The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 208, no. 5, pp. 360–365, 2013.
[2]  B. A. Mahal, J. M. Cohen, S. A. Allsop et al., “The role of phenotyping in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome,” Current Urology Reports, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 297–303, 2011.
[3]  J. C. Nickel and D. A. Shoskes, “Phenotypic approach to the management of the chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome,” BJU International, vol. 106, no. 9, pp. 1252–1263, 2010.
[4]  J. W. Warren, V. Morozov, and F. M. Howard, “Could chronic pelvic pain be a functional somatic syndrome?” The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 205, no. 3, pp. 199.e1–199.e5, 2011.
[5]  F. F. Tu, J. Holt, J. Gonzales, and C. M. Fitzgerald, “Physical therapy evaluation of patients with chronic pelvic pain: a controlled study,” The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 198, no. 3, pp. 272.e1–272.e7, 2008.
[6]  F. F. Tu, K. M. Hellman, and M. M. Backonja, “Gynecologic management of neuropathic pain,” The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 205, no. 5, pp. 435–443, 2011.
[7]  B. W. Fenton, P. A. Palmieri, C. Durner, and J. Fanning, “Quantification of abdominal wall pain using pain pressure threshold algometry in patients with chronic pelvic Pain pnet,” Clinical Journal of Pain, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 500–505, 2009.
[8]  B. W. Fenton, S. F. Grey, A. Armstrong, M. McCarroll, and V. Von Gruenigen, “Latent profile analysis of pelvic floor muscle pain in patients with chronic pelvic pain,” Minerva Ginecologica, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 69–78, 2013.
[9]  T. A. Schmitt and D. A. Sass, “Rotation criteria and hypothesis testing for exploratory factor analysis: implications for factor pattern loadings and interfactor correlations,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 95–113, 2011.
[10]  A. B. Costello and J. W. Osborne, “Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis,” Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, vol. 10, no. 7, 2005.
[11]  K. L. Nylund, T. Asparouhov, and B. O. Muthén, “Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study,” Structural Equation Modeling, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 535–569, 2007.
[12]  G. H. Lubke and B. Muthén, “Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models,” Psychological Methods, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 21–39, 2005.
[13]  G. Celeux and G. Soromenho, “An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model,” Journal of Classification, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 195–212, 1996.
[14]  L. K. Muthén and B. O. Muthén, Mplus User’s Guide, Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles, Calif, USA, 2012.
[15]  D. Zolnoun, E. Bair, G. Essick, et al., “Reliability and reproducibility of novel methodology for assessment of pressure pain sensitivity in pelvis,” Journal of Pain, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 910–920, 2012.
[16]  M. A. Bullones Rodriguez, N. afari, D. S. Buchwald, et al., “Evidence for overlap between urological and nonurological unexplained clinical conditions,” Journal of Urology, vol. 189, supplement, no. 1, pp. S66–S74, 2013.
[17]  G. Atwal, D. Du Plessis, G. Armstrong, R. Slade, and M. Quinn, “Uterine innervation after hysterectomy for chronic pelvic pain with, and without, endometriosis,” The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 193, no. 5, pp. 1650–1655, 2005.
[18]  J. Leserman, D. Zolnoun, S. Meltzer-Brody, G. Lamvu, and J. F. Steege, “Identification of diagnostic subtypes of chronic pelvic pain and how subtypes differ in health status and trauma history,” The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 195, no. 2, pp. 554–560, 2006.
[19]  B. W. Fenton, C. Durner, and J. Fanning, “Frequency and distribution of multiple diagnoses in chronic pelvic pain related to previous abuse or drug-seeking behavior,” Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 247–251, 2008.
[20]  D. Amtmann, K. F. Cook, M. P. Jensen et al., “Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference,” Pain, vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 173–182, 2010.
[21]  R. H. Nguyen, C. Veasley, and D. Smolenski, “Latent class analysis of comorbidity patterns among women with generalized and localized vulvodynia: preliminary findings,” Journal of Pain Research, vol. 6, pp. 303–309, 2013.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133