The development and testing of the depression, anxiety, and positive outlook scale (DAPOS)

Measurement of depression and other mood states in pain patients has been criticised in recent years on the grounds that most questionnaires were not developed in pain populations and suffer from criterion contamination by somatic items. In addition, there is no accepted measurement for positive emotions which are more than the absence of depression. The aim of this study was to develop a reliable and brief tool to assess mood in pain patients. Non-somatic items concerning depression, anxiety and positive outlook were extracted using exploratory factor analysis from commonly used instruments (the Beck Depression Inventory and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) completed by over 900 chronic pain patients. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the internal structure of the final item set. Items were then reworded and presented as a new questionnaire (the Depression, Anxiety and Positive Outlook Scale: DAPOS) to two new samples: patients attending pain management and patients attending osteopathy. The new questionnaire was compared with several well-known questionnaires (SF36, BDI, PCS). The structure was calibrated and tested using confirmatory factor analysis on both samples. Finally, a subset of patients carried out a sorting task to test for face validity. The DAPOS performed well, indicating that it is a reliable measure of the three mood states with good initial evidence of validity in these samples. © 2004 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Investigating the veracity of a sample of divergent published trial data in spinal pain

Evidence-based medicine is replete with studies assessing quality and bias, but few evaluating research integrity or trustworthiness. A recent Cochrane review of psychological interventions for chronic pain identified trials with a shared lead author with highly divergent results. We sought to systematically identify all similar trials from this author to explore their risk of bias, governance procedures, and trustworthiness. We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PEDro from 2010 to December 22, 2021 for trials. We contacted the authors requesting details of trial registration, ethical approval, protocol, and access to the trial data for verification. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth group's Trustworthiness Screening Tool to guide systematic exploration of trustworthiness. Ten trials were included: 9 compared cognitive behavioural therapy and physical exercise to usual care, exercise alone, or physiotherapy and 1 compared 2 brief cognitive behavioural therapy programmes. Eight trials reported results divergent from the evidence base. Assessment of risk of bias and participant characteristics identified no substantial concerns. Responses from the lead author did not satisfactorily explain this divergence. Trustworthiness screening identified concerns about research governance, data plausibility at baseline, the results, and apparent data duplication. We discuss the findings within the context of methods for establishing the trustworthiness of research findings generally. Important concerns regarding the trustworthiness of these trials reduce our confidence in them. They should probably not be used to inform the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, in clinical training, policy documents, or any relevant instruction regarding adult chronic pain management.</p

Recommendations for the development, implementation, and reporting of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials of physical, psychological, and self-management therapies: the CoPPS Statement

Control interventions (often called “sham,” “placebo,” or “attention controls”) are essential for studying the efficacy or mechanism of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions in clinical trials. This article presents core recommendations for designing, conducting, and reporting control interventions to establish a quality standard in non-pharmacological intervention research. A framework of additional considerations supports researchers’ decision making in this context. We also provide a reporting checklist for control interventions to enhance research transparency, usefulness, and rigour