Developing and assessing the measurement properties of an instrument to assess the impact of musculoskeletal pain in children aged 9 to 12-the pediatric musculoskeletal pain impact summary score.
Priscilla Viana da Silva, Steven J Kamper, Alix Hall and 4 others
PMID 38636288WHAT IT FOUND
A four-item pain impact score in children aged 9 to 12 did not hold together well enough to recommend it for clinical use.
It did separate children with frequent pain from those with infrequent pain, but the evidence for it was limited.
Key findings
01The score did not meet the recommended consistency threshold, with a value of 0.63 below 0.70.
02The summary score separated children with frequent pain from children with infrequent pain, with a mean difference of 2.93 (95% CI: 2.36, 3.50).
03Three out of the six (50%) hypotheses were not confirmed.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The score was built from pre-existing questions inserted into another trial's baseline survey, without the usual step-by-step instrument development, pilot testing, or field testing. Responses were skewed toward 'never', suggesting a floor effect and possible limited content validity. The authors did not test measurement error, minimal detectable change, responsiveness, or clinically important difference. The score covers physical impact and does not address psychological well-being or social participation. The analysis started with 815 returned surveys but included 615 children, and the complete-case total score used 599 children, so not all children contributed to all results. The instrument was assessed in children aged 9 to 12 from 12 Catholic schools in New South Wales, so it may not apply to younger children, other ages, or other settings.
Declared interests
The research did not receive a specific grant from public, commercial, or not-for-profit funding agencies. Hunter New England Health, Population Health supported the infrastructure of the trial. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the mean difference of 2.93 as proof the score is ready for clinical use. The four items did not reach the recommended consistency standard, with a value of 0.63 below 0.70, and three of six planned checks against other measures were not confirmed.