MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

[An evaluation of pain in haemodialysis patients using different validated measurement scales].

2009· article· en· W193565174 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jordi Calls, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez-Calero, Mj Gutiérrez Navarro, Francisca Juan Amer, D Tura, Jj Torrijos

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyMcGill Pain QuestionnaireChronic painAnalgesicPain assessmentVisual analogue scaleDialysisPain scaleBrief Pain InventoryPain managementAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pain in haemodialysis is very common, although frequently underdiagnosed. Chronic pain in dialysis has been scarcely evaluated, and intradialytic pain has not been specifically analyzed. Our aim was to compare intradialytic versus chronic pain characteristics in the same group of twenty-seven hemodialyzed patients, to investigate whether there were or not differences between them. Several validated scales were used: a) Analogical Visual Scale, defines pain intensity from 0, no pain, to 10, the worst pain; b) Pain Management Index, that results from subtracting pain level from analgesic use, ranging from - 3 (inadequate) to + 3 (adequate management); c) McGill Pain Questionnaire, which defines three items: pain related qualitative index, number of words chosen, and present pain intensity; and d) Brief Pain Inventory, which analyses influence of pain in patient's life, was only aplicable to evaluate chronic pain. Tests were administered firstly during the dialysis session for evaluating intradialytic pain, and another day out of the session to evaluate chronic pain. Ischemic pain was the most common during the session (37%), whereas muscle-skeletal was more frequent out of the session (77%). Prevalence of pain was higher during the session (92.5% vs 77.7%, p < 0.05). Number of weekly sessions with pain was 1.78 +/- 1.2. Analogical visual score was slightly higher during the session with respect to chronic pain (3.28 +/- 2.22 vs 2.67 +/- 2.13, p = NS). Pain Management Index scores were significantly different (intradialytic: -0.81 +/- 0.76, chronic pain: -0.12 +/- 0.94). McGill test scores were similar in both situations. Only in chronic pain, time on dialysis correlated significantly with analogical visual scores, pain related index and number of words chosen, and parathyroid hormone levels with analogical visual scores and interference to displacement score from Brief Pain Inventory. Farmacological treatment was prescribed in 11% of patients with intradialytic pain (63.1% of responders) compared to 74% for those with chronic pain (53.1% of responders). In conclusion, pain in hemodialysis is very frequent and becomes undertreated. Pain scales used have been shown to be useful in this setting. Several differences appear between intradialytic and chronic pain. Chronic pain is less frequent and intense, better treated, mainly derived from a muscle-skeletal source, and it is related to time on dialysis and to secondary hyperparathyroidism.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicPain Management and Opioid Use→French-language works237,207→