Home Medicine Reply to Letter to the Editor
Article Publicly Available

Reply to Letter to the Editor

  • Tarja Heiskanen EMAIL logo , Risto P. Roine and Eija Kalso
Published/Copyright: January 1, 2013
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Dear Sir,

We thank Drs Johan Hambraeus and Fredrik Campbell for their comment on our study “Multidisciplinary pain treatment – Which patients do benefit?”.

The authors express their concern regarding the acceptance of patients for multidisciplinary pain management at the Pain Clinic of the Helsinki University Central Hospital. It seems that the concern of Hambraeus and Campbell is due to comparing apples with oranges, i.e. comparing two different quality of life measures.

The average quality of life in the general populationin Finland as assessed using the 15 Dis 0.903 [1]. In patients awaiting hip surgery for painful arthrosis and patients with osteoarthritis or chronic arthritis, the average 15D scores were 0.810 and 0.801, respectively [1,2]. The 15D quality of life of the patients of our study was at the baseline 0.714 which is significantly lower than that of the other patient groups with chronic pain and obviously even much lower than that of the general population.

Hambraeus and Campbell refer to another quality of life measure (EQ-5D).Incontrast to 15D, even negative scores may begiven in EQ-5D. In the two studies cited by the authors [3,4], negative EQ-5D values were given a score of 0. In 15D, a score of 0 is equal to being dead and obviously it is not used by (living) patients. In general, EQ-5D seems to give smaller index values and be less sensitive when compared with 15D [5]. In the two Swedish studies, the mean index value for EQ-5D in the Swedish general population ranged from 0.74 to 0.89. The scoring method usedinthe NRPR registry and by the authors in their study is obviously different, given that they report an average baseline EQ-5D value of 0.295–0.308 in patients accepted for rehabilitation.

We agree with the authors that it is important to assess health-related quality of life in chronic pain treatment.


DOI of refers to article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2012.11.009..


References

[1] Laas K, Roine RP, Räsänen P, Sintonen H, Leirisalo-Repo M. Health-related quality of life inpatients with common rheumatic diseases referredto a university clinic. Rheumatol Int 2009;29:267–73.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Räsänen P, Paavolainen P, Sintonen H, Koivisto AM, Blom M, Ryynänen OP, Roine RP. Effectivenessofhiporknee replacement surgeryintermsofquality-adjusted life years and costs. Acta Orthop 2007;78:108–15.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 2001;10:621–35.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Burström K, Johannesson M, Rehnberg C. Deteriorating health status in Stockholm 1998–2002: results from repeated population surveys using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 2007;16:1547–53.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Vainiola T, Pettilä V, Roine RP, Räsänen P, Rissanen AM, Sintonen H. Comparison of two utility instruments, the EQ-5D and the 15D, in the critical care setting. Intensive Care Med 2010;36:2090–3.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2013-01-01
Published in Print: 2013-01-01

© 2012 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Editorial comment
  2. A new treatment principle for neuropathic pain? Approved oncologic drugs: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors dramatically relieve severe neuropathic pain in a case series
  3. Educational case report
  4. Epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR)-inhibition for relief of neuropathic pain–A case series
  5. Editorial comment
  6. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is not one single phenomenon – Large intra-individual differences depend on test stimulus (TS) and several other independent factors
  7. Original experimental
  8. The role of stimulation parameters on the conditioned pain modulation response
  9. Editorial comment
  10. Why we are proud to publish well-performed negative clinical studies?
  11. Clinical pain research
  12. Evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of AZD1940, a novel cannabinoid agonist, on post-operative pain after lower third molar surgical removal
  13. Editorial comment
  14. What really goes on behind closed doors: The need to understand communication about pain
  15. Observational studies
  16. The association between physicians’ attitudes to psychosocial aspects of low back pain and reported clinical behaviour: A complex issue
  17. Editorial comment
  18. It’s not cool to reduce the skin temperature and activate the TRPM8 ion channel after spinal injury
  19. Original experimental
  20. Activation of TRPM8 cold receptor triggers allodynia-like behavior in spinally injured rats
  21. Editorial comment
  22. Sunburn—A human inflammatory pain model for primary and secondary hyperalgesia
  23. Original experimental
  24. Central origin of pinprick hyperalgesia adjacent to an UV-B induced inflammatory skin pain model in healthy volunteers
  25. Editorial comment
  26. Validity of conclusions on treatment efficacy: Difficulties in patient recruitment and a large number of drop-outs may lead to bias
  27. Original experimental
  28. The nitric oxide synthase inhibitor and serotonin-receptor agonist NXN-188 during the aura phase of migraine with aura: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study
  29. Correspondence
  30. Which patients benefit from treatment?
  31. Correspondence
  32. Reply to Letter to the Editor
  33. Acknowledgement of Reviewers
Downloaded on 29.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1016/j.sjpain.2012.11.010/html
Scroll to top button