MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A new reminder that pain hurts

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

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0110.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.016

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207