护理学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (2): 56-62.doi: 10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2025.02.056
基于COSMIN方法对慢性疼痛患者恐动症坦帕评分表的系统评价
李嘉琪1, 莫文娟1, 王一棋1, 王洁1,2, 李梦楠1, 刘兴1, 冯佳1
- 1.南华大学 护理学院,湖南 衡阳 421001;
2.南华大学附属第一医院 肝胆外科,湖南 衡阳 421001
摘要： 目的 评估慢性疼痛患者恐动症坦帕评分表（Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia,TSK）的测量学属性及研究的方法学质量,为临床实践和研究提供参考。方法 检索PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、Embase、SinoMed、中国知网、维普、万方数据库,获取有关慢性疼痛患者恐动症坦帕评分表测量性能评价的研究,检索时限为建库至2024年5月18日,基于健康测量工具遴选标准（Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments,COSMIN）对量表的测量学属性及研究方法学进行质量评价,并汇总分析评价结果。结果 共纳入27项研究,涉及4个不同版本的恐动症坦帕评分表（TSK-11、TSK-12、TSK-13和TSK-17）。就量表的测量学性能而言,TSK-11的内容效度为“不确定”,结构效度和内部一致性均为“不一致”,信度、假设检验和反应度均为“充分”;TSK-12的结构效度和内部一致性均为“不充分”,假设检验为“不确定”;TSK-13的内容效度和跨文化效度均为“不确定”,结构效度、内部一致性、信度、假设检验和反应度均为“充分”;TSK-17的内容效度和结构效度均为“不确定”,内部一致性、信度和假设检验均为“充分”,反应度为“不充分”。以上4个量表均为B级推荐。结论 4种恐动症坦帕评分表中（TSK-11、TSK-12、TSK-13和TSK-17）,TSK-17可暂时被用于慢性疼痛患者恐动症评估中,但仍需在规范研究方法学的前提下对其测量性能进一步检验。
中图分类号:
- R473.6
| [1] 邢丽华, 邹其云, 陈传波. 肺癌术后患者恐动症研究进展[J]. 广东医学, 2021, 42(2):134-137. DOI:10.13820/j.cnki.gdyx.20193234. [2] 伍思俐. 肺癌术后患者恐动症与护理对策研究进展[J]. 中外医学研究, 2022, 20(21):181-184. DOI:10.14033/j.cnki.cfmr.2022.21.046. [3] French D, France C, Vigneau F, et al.Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic pain: a psychometric assessment of the original English version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK)[J]. Pain, 2007, 127(1):42-51. DOI:10.1016/j.pain.2006.07.016. [4] Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al.COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures[J]. Qual Life Res, 2018, 27(5):1147-1157. DOI:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3. [5] 陈祎婷, 彭健, 沈蓝君, 等. COSMIN方法介绍:制作患者报告结局测量工具的系统评价[J]. 护士进修杂志, 2021, 36(8):699-703. DOI:10.16821/j.cnki.hsjx.2021.08.005. [6] 张璐嘉, 李顺平. COSMIN系统综述指南应用简介[J]. 中国药物经济学, 2020, 15(1):5-7. DOI:10.12010/j.issn.1673-5846.2020.01.001. [7] 施月仙, 张海明, 黄亚琪, 等. 选择健康测量工具的共识标准(COSMIN)偏倚风险评价清单的解读[J]. 中国护理管理, 2021, 21(7):1053-1057. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2021.07.018. [8] 陈祎婷, 沈蓝君, 彭健, 等. 改良版定量系统评价证据分级方法对患者报告结局测量工具的评价[J]. 解放军护理杂志, 2020,37(10):57-60.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-9993.2020.10.014. [9] Bisson EJ, Katz L, Vader K, et al.Pain-related fear in adults living with chronic pain: development and psychometric validation of a brief form of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia[J]. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2022,103(5):875-881.e1. DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2021.09.001. [10] Gómez-Pérez L,López-Martínez AE,Ruiz-Párraga GT.Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK)[J]. J Pain, 2011, 12(4):425-435. DOI:10.1016/j.jpain.2010.08.004. [11] Hapidou EG, O'Brien MA, Pierrynowski MR, et al. Fear and avoidance of movement in people with chronic pain: psychometric properties of the 11-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11)[J]. Physiother Can, 2012, 64(3):235-241. DOI:10.3138/ptc.2011-10. [12] Roelofs J, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH, et al.Fear of movement and (re)injury in chronic musculoskeletal pain: evidence for an invariant two-factor model of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia across pain diagnoses and Dutch, Swedish, and Canadian samples[J]. Pain, 2007, 131(1-2):181-190. DOI:10.1016/j.pain.2007.01.008. [13] Rusu AC, Kreddig N, Hallner D, et al.Fear of movement/(Re)injury in low back pain: confirmatory validation of a German version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2014,15(1):280. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-15-280. [14] Salvador EMES, Franco KFM, Miyamoto GC, et al.Analysis of the measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia-11 in patients with fibromyalgia[J]. Braz J Phys Ther, 2021, 25(2):168-174. DOI:10.1016/j.bjpt.2020.05.004. [15] Swinnen TW, Vlaeyen JWS, Dankaerts W, et al.Activity limitations in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: a role for fear of movement and (re)injury beliefs[J]. J Rheumatol, 2018, 45(3):357-366. DOI:10.3899/jrheum.170318. [16] Tkachuk GA, Harris CA.Psychometric properties of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia-11 (TSK-11)[J]. J Pain, 2012, 13(10):970-977. DOI:10.1016/j.jpain.2012.07.001. [17] Woby SR, Roach NK, Urmston M, et al.Psychometric properties of the TSK-11: a shortened version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia[J]. Pain, 2005, 117(1-2):137-144. DOI:10.1016/j.pain.2005.05.029. [18] Youngcharoen P, Saraboon Y, Aree-Ue S, et al.Psychometric properties of the Thai Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia among older people with knee osteoarthritis[J]. J Med Assoc Thai, 2021, 104(8):1317-1325. DOI:10.35755/jmedassocthai.2021.08.12901. [19] Houben RM, Leeuw M, Vlaeyen JW, et al.Fear of movement/injury in the general population: factor structure and psychometric properties of an adapted version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia[J]. J Behav Med,2005, 28(5):415-424. DOI:10.1007/s10865-005-9011-x. [20] Haugen AJ, Gr?vle L, Keller A, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008, 33(17):E595-E601. DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817c6c4b. [21] Cordeiro N, Pezarat-Correia P, Gil J, et al.Portuguese language version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia [13 items][J]. J Musculoskelet Pain, 2013, 21(1):58-63. DOI:10.3109/10582452.2012.762966. [22] Damsgård E, Fors T, Anke A, et al.The Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia: a Rasch analysis of its properties in subjects with low back and more widespread pain[J]. J Rehabil Med, 2007, 39(9):672-678. DOI:10.2340/16501977-0125. [23] Monticone M, Giorgi I, Baiardi P, et al.Development of the Italian version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-I): cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, and validity[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(12):1241-1246. DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bfcbf6. [24] Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Rocca B, et al.Responsiveness of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in Italian subjects with chronic low back pain undergoing motor and cognitive rehabilitation[J]. Eur Spine J, 2016, 25(9):2882-2888. DOI:10.1007/s00586-016-4682-2. [25] Wei X, Xu X, Zhao Y, et al.The Chinese version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia was cross-culturally adapted and validated in patients with low back pain[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2015,68(10):1205-1212. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.07.003. [26] Areeudomwong P, Buttagat V.Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Thai version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in knee osteoarthritis patients[J]. Malays J Med Sci, 2017, 24(2):61-67. DOI:10.21315/mjms2017.24.2.8. [27] Georgoudis G, Raptis K, Koutserimpas C.Cognitive assessment of musculoskeletal pain: validity and reliability of the Greek version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in patients suffering from chronic low back pain[J]. Maedica (Bucur), 2022,17(4):826-832. DOI:10.26574/maedica.2022.17.4.826. [28] Huang H, Nagao M, Arita H, et al.Reproducibility, responsiveness and validation of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in patients with ACL injuries[J]. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2019, 17(1):150. DOI:10.1186/s12955-019-1217-7. [29] Juweid M, Farah K, Hawamdeh Z, et al.Fear of movement/[re]injury among Arabic low back pain patients: establishing the validity of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-Arabic version[J]. Myopain, 2017, 23(3/4):134-142. DOI:10.1080/24708593.2017.1303014. [30] Koho P, Aho S, Kautiainen H, et al.Test-retest reliability and comparability of paper and computer questionnaires for the Finnish version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia[J]. Physiotherapy, 2014,100(4):356-362.DOI:10.1016/j.physio.2013.11.007. [31] Lamé IE, Peters ML, Kessels AG, et al.Test--retest stability of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in chronic pain over a longer period of time[J]. [J] Health Psychol. 2008,13(6):820-826. DOI:10.1177/1359105308093866. [32] Lundberg MKE, Styf J, Carlsson SG.A psychometric evaluation of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia-from a physiotherapeutic perspective[J]. Physiother Theory Pract, 2004, 20(2):121-133. DOI:10.1080/09593980490453002. [33] Nigbur K, Rusu AC, Hallner D, et al.Fear of movement/(re) injury in chronic pain: preliminary validation of a German version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia[J]. Eur J Pain, 2009, 13(S1):S239. DOI:10.1016/S1090-3801(09)60838-7. [34] Yona T, Yaniv M, Rom J, et al.Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and reliability of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia(TSK) into Hebrew[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2023, 143(5):2629-2640. DOI:10.1007/s00402-022-04548-5. [35] 胡文. 简体中文版TSK和FABQ量表的文化调适及其在退行性腰腿痛中的应用研究[D]. 上海: 第二军医大学, 2012. [36] 詹述琴, 郑智慧, 黄宝英, 等. 认知信任量表的汉化及在医务人员中的信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(13):30-34. DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2024.13.030. [37] 宋彩妮, 郑尧, 宋英, 等. 癌症照顾者信息隐瞒量表的汉化及在肺癌患者照顾者中的信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(3):17-20. DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2024.03.017. |
| [1] | 伍丽华, 吴心雨, 赖湘瑜, 邓宝贵, 黄泽青, 赵耀, 廖源, 沈彩萍, 李瑜. 人工关节置换术后患者深静脉血栓风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(3): 12-16. |
| [2] | 余璐, 黄晓沁, 刘琳, 袁嘉敏, 邬青. 心力衰竭患者30天非计划性再入院风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(8): 43-48. |
| [3] | 周越, 张杰, 潘宇帆, 戴雨, 孙羽健, 肖益, 余雨枫. 机械通气患者衰弱风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(6): 56-61. |
| [4] | 吴林梅, 梁志金, 刘瑞杰, 钟静静, 邱予骅. COPD患者运动康复促进和阻碍因素的系统评价-基于CFIR多层次理论[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(5): 44-49. |
| [5] | 王丽云, 张明慧, 张新月, 沙凯辉. 产后压力性尿失禁风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(3): 57-62. |
| [6] | 杨丽娜, 黄蓉, 姚梅琦, 王竹青, 徐怡婷, 谢佩敏. 产后母乳喂养行为中断风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(23): 59-65. |
| [7] | 章明阳, 刘京辉, 金雁, 徐文琪, 李斌飞, 黄珊, 杜李百合, 侯亚甜, 李小寒. 围手术期低体温风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(22): 54-60. |
| [8] | 张亦然, 王康美, 朱盛财, 朱璐, 黄沂. 中文版高血压患者自我管理评估工具的系统评价：基于COSMIN指南[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(19): 52-57. |
| [9] | . 轻度认知障碍向阿尔兹海默病进展风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(12): 47-53. |
| [10] | 朱明月, 丁晓彤, 史纪元, 李峥. 自我感知老化对老年人认知功能影响的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(8): 52-57. |
| [11] | 叶磊, 张爱琴, 荣芸, 夏广惠. 老年髋部骨折患者术后谵妄风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(7): 48-52. |
| [12] | 杨楠楠, 蒋慧萍, 史婷奇. 基于机器学习构建住院患者深静脉血栓风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(23): 44-49. |
| [13] | 魏佳豪, 卜梦茹, 白子叶, 周瑾. 肺癌中医临床疗效评估工具测量学特性的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(22): 56-62. |
| [14] | 王窈, 管玉香, 郑静, 许娟, 王超. 持续血糖监测在糖尿病患者中应用的系统评价再评价[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(21): 39-45. |
| [15] | 朱明月, 史纪元, 李峥. 计算机化认知训练对认知功能障碍患者干预效果的系统评价再评价[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(21): 46-53. |
|
||