AB1328 MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES OF THE BRIEF PAIN INVENTORY-SHORT FORM (BPI-SF) AND THE REVISED SHORT-FORM MCGILL PAIN QUESTIONNAIRE-VERSION-2 (SF-MPQ-2) IN PAIN-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL CONDITIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Authors: Joy MacDermid, Samuel Jumbo, Michael Kalu, Tara Packham, George Athwal, Ken Faber
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2019)

<h3>Background</h3> The Brief Pain Inventory (BPF-SF) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2) are general-use, self-report, multidimensional pain assessment outcomes frequently used for pain assessment in musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. Synthesizing knowledge on their measurement properties, as assessed in MSK conditions, should provide a deeper understanding of their strengths and limitations. <h3>Objectives</h3> To systematically locate, critically appraise, compare and summarize clinical measurement research about the BPI-SF and SF-MPQ-2 in pain-related musculoskeletal conditions <h3>Methods</h3> Four databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE &amp; SCOPUS) were systematically searched for relevant citations, each for the BPI-SF and SF-MPQ-2. We included articles that reported the psychometric properties (e.g. validity, reliability, responsiveness) and interpretability indices (e.g. minimal clinical important difference) of both tools, as assessed in mixed and specific MSK studies. Independently, two reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence with a structured quality assessment tool for measurement studies and according to the updated <b>CO</b>nsensus-based <b>S</b>tandards for the selection of health <b>M</b>easurement <b>IN</b>struments (COSMIN) guidelines. <h3>Results</h3> Twenty-five articles were included (BPI-SF, n=17; SF-MPQ-2, n=8). Both tools lack reporting on their cross-cultural validities and measurement error indices. High quality studies suggest that they are internally consistent (α = 0.83-0.96), and they associate modestly with similar outcome measures (r = 0.3-0.69). There is evidence that the BPI-SF conforms to its two-dimensional structure in MSK studies; the SF-MPQ-2 four-factor structure was not clearly established. In seven reports, high to moderate quality evidence was seen in supports of the BPI-SF known group validity (n=2) and responsiveness (n=5) but none was available for the SF-MPQ-2. Furthermore, the SF-MPQ-2 was more frequently associated with floor effects in MSK studies than the BPI-SF (SF-MPQ-2, 42% vs BPI-SF, 6%). <h3>Conclusion</h3> The SF-MPQ-2 has emeging evidence whereas the BPI-SF evidence is more mature. Both tools displayed high-quality evidence in support of their internal consistency and criterion-convergent validities. High to moderate quality evidence suggests the BPI-SF subscales have a better responsiveness, retest reliability, known group validity and structural validity than the SF-MPQ-2. <h3>References</h3> [1] Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1994;23(2):129-138. doi:10.1016/0029-7844(94)00457-O. [2] Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Revicki DA, 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. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.02.007. [3] Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Trudeau JJ, et al. Validation of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2) in Acute Low Back Pain. J Pain. 2015;16(4):357-366. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.012. <h3>Disclosure of Interests</h3> None declared