MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1507379806 · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.04097.x

A new reminder that pain hurts

2011· letter· en· W1507379806 sur OpenAlexaff
Lynn M. Breau

Notice bibliographique

RevueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2011
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePediatric Pain Management Techniques
Établissements canadiensDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The body of research regarding pain in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is small, but growing. The most recent study, by Ramstad et al.,1 highlights both the prevalence and impact of pain in this population. They found that over 67% of children reported recurrent pain and that mean pain intensity was greater than 5 on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale. These data suggest that pain is common and that it can be severe. Given the nature of the pain children reported in their study, it is not surprising that it interfered with their daily lives, adding to the burden of their physical and intellectual impairments. Other studies have also examined the effects of pain on children with cerebral palsy through parent report or by questioning children directly. Houlihan et al.2 asked the parents of 198 children with CP aged 5 to 18 years to complete questionnaires. Their results indicated that pain was significantly related to the number of days children missed school and stayed in bed. In another study, Engel et al.3 interviewed 20 children with CP aged 6 to 17 years. Fourteen children reported bothersome pain in one or more body locations in the 3 months before the study and nine of these reported that pain was a problem for them. The children indicated that the greatest impact of pain was on physically demanding activities such as mobility, while less interference was reported for less demanding activities such as eating. They also found that pain caused problems with sleep. When Tervo et al.4 interviewed the parents of 77 children aged 3 to 17 years, they found similar results. Sixty-one percent reported that their child had pain in the past week and 33% reported that the pain interfered with normal activities including mobility, self-care, and participation in physical education. Finally, Varni et al.5 found that, based on both the self-report and parent-report of 77 children with CP, pain was related to all aspects of health-related quality of life, including physical and psychosocial health, emotional, social and school functioning, daily activities, school activities, movement and balance, fatigue, eating activities, and speech and communication. The results reported by Ramstad et al. concur with these previous studies. For the children studied here, pain not only had an impact on general activity, walking and sleep, but also was made worse by walking, running or being immobile. This suggests that children may avoid these activities, further reducing function. Thus, these new results add to the evidence that pain has a real impact on children with CP that has the potential to reduce function across multiple areas of their lives, reduce quality of life, and probably prevents children from reaching their full potential. Sadly, our knowledge that pain has a negative impact on children with CP is not new. In 1965, Reynell6 published a seminal study in this journal. Her observations of 50 children with CP after surgery constitute the first objective report of pain interfering with function in this group. The fact that studies today, 45 years later, are still finding negative effects of pain on children with CP speaks to the fact that either our attitudes towards pain or our practices in managing pain have not changed substantially in over four decades. Most pain related to CP can be treated effectively with well-tuned multi-disciplinary care. Thus, a great deal of the pain that these children experience can be managed with good care. For that reason, it is commendable that Ramstad et al. have once again reminded us that pain is common, severe, and influential in the lives of children with CP and that our efforts to relieve this unnecessary suffering must not stop.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,023
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,076

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,004
Communication savante0,0050,009
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0110,020
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0230,016

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,246
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologyMême sujetPediatric Pain Management TechniquesTravaux en français237 207