Question Although mental pain is present in many mental disorders and is a predictor of suicide, it is rarely investigated in research or treated in care. A valid tool to measure it is a necessary first step towards better understanding, predicting and ultimately relieving this pain. Study selection and analysis Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we performed a systematic review to identify all published standardised measures of mental pain. We used qualitative content analysis to evaluate the similarity of each measure, quantified via Jaccard Index scores ranging from no similarity (0) to full similarity (1). Finally, using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, we evaluated each measure’s development (assessing 35 features), its content validity (31 features) and if the latter was rated at least adequate, its other psychometric properties. Findings We identified 10 self-reported scales of mental pain in 2658 screened studies relying on diverse definitions of this construct. The highest average similarity coefficient for any given measure was 0.24, indicative of weak similarity (individual pairwise coefficients from 0 to 0.5). Little to no information was provided regarding the development and the content validity of all 10 scales. Therefore, their development and content validity were rated ‘inadequate’ or ‘doubtful’. Conclusions and clinical implications There is not enough evidence of validity to recommend using one measure over others in research or clinical practice. Heterogeneous use of disparate measures across studies limits comparison and combination of their results in meta-analyses. Development by all stakeholders (especially patients) of a consensual patient-reported measure for mental pain is needed. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021242679. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

中文翻译：

---

如何衡量精神痛苦：评估精神痛苦措施的系统评价

问题 尽管精神疼痛存在于许多精神障碍中，并且是自杀的预测因素，但很少进行研究或护理治疗。一个有效的衡量工具是更好地理解、预测和最终缓解这种痛苦的必要的第一步。研究选择和分析按照系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目，我们进行了系统评价，以确定所有已发表的精神痛苦的标准化测量方法。我们使用定性内容分析来评估每个度量的相似性，通过杰卡德指数分数进行量化，范围从不相似（0）到完全相似（1）。最后，使用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准（COSMIN）方法，我们评估了每项测量的发展（评估 35 个特征）、其内容有效性（31 个特征），如果后者被评为至少足够，则其其他测量心理测量特性。结果 我们根据这一结构的不同定义，在 2658 项筛选研究中确定了 10 种自我报告的精神疼痛量表。任何给定度量的最高平均相似性系数为 0.24，表明相似性较弱（各个成对系数从 0 到 0.5）。几乎没有提供有关所有 10 个量表的开发和内容有效性的信息。因此，它们的发展和内容有效性被评为“不足”或“可疑”。结论和临床意义 没有足够的有效性证据来推荐在研究或临床实践中使用一种措施而不是其他措施。不同研究中不同测量方法的异质使用限制了荟萃分析中结果的比较和组合。需要所有利益相关者（特别是患者）制定一致的患者报告的精神痛苦措施。PROSPERO 注册号 CRD42021242679。与研究相关的所有数据都包含在文章中或作为补充信息上传。