Background: Pain is a common problem after stroke and is associated with poor outcomes. There is no consensus on the optimal method of pain assessment in stroke. A review of the properties of tools should allow an evidence based approach to assessment. Objectives: We aimed to systematically review published data on pain assessment tools used in stroke, with particular focus on classical test properties of: validity, reliability, feasibility, responsiveness. Methods: We searched multiple, cross-disciplinary databases for studies evaluating properties of pain assessment tools used in stroke. We assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. We used a modified harvest plot to visually represent psychometric properties across tests. Results: The search yielded 12 relevant articles, describing 10 different tools (n = 1,106 participants). There was substantial heterogeneity and an overall high risk of bias. The most commonly assessed property was validity (eight studies) and responsiveness the least (one study). There were no studies with a neuropathic or headache focus. Included tools were either scales or questionnaires. The most commonly assessed tool was the Faces Pain Scale (FPS) (6 studies). The limited number of papers precluded meaningful meta-analysis at level of pain assessment tool or pain syndrome. Even where common data were available across papers, results were conflicting e.g., two papers described FPS as feasible and two described the scale as having feasibility issues. Conclusion: Robust data on the properties of pain assessment tools for stroke are limited. Our review highlights specific areas where evidence is lacking and could guide further research to identify the best tool(s) for assessing post-stroke pain. Improving feasibility of assessment in stroke survivors should be a future research target. Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42019160679 Available online at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019160679.

中文翻译：

---

用于中风患者的疼痛评估工具的属性：系统评价。

背景：疼痛是中风后的常见问题，并且与不良结局有关。关于中风疼痛评估的最佳方法尚无共识。对工具属性的审查应允许采用基于证据的评估方法。目标：我们旨在系统地审查有关中风疼痛评估工具的已发布数据，特别关注经典测试属性：有效性，可靠性，可行性，响应性。方法：我们搜索了多个跨学科的数据库，以研究评估中风使用的疼痛评估工具的性质。我们使用“诊断准确性研究质量评估”工具评估了偏倚风险。我们使用修改后的收成图直观地表示了各个测试的心理测量特性。结果：搜索产生了12条相关文章，描述了10种不同的工具（n = 1,106名参与者）。存在很大的异质性和总体偏见风险。评估最普遍的属性是有效性（八项研究）和响应性最低（一项研究）。没有针对神经性或头痛的研究。包括的工具是量表或问卷。最常用的评估工具是面部疼痛量表（FPS）（6个研究）。论文数量有限，无法在疼痛评估工具或疼痛综合症水平进行有意义的荟萃分析。即使各篇论文都有共同的数据，但结果却相矛盾，例如，有两篇论文认为FPS是可行的，而另两篇论文则描述了规模存在可行性问题。结论：关于中风疼痛评估工具性能的可靠数据有限。我们的综述着重指出了缺乏证据的特定领域，并可以指导进一步的研究，以确定评估中风后疼痛的最佳工具。改善中风幸存者评估的可行性应成为未来的研究目标。系统评价注册编号：PROSPERO CRD42019160679，可在线访问：https：//www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php？ID = CRD42019160679。