A cross-sectional study of post-amputation pain in upper and lower limb amputees, experience of a tertiary referral amputee clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the pain characteristics and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) of upper and lower limb amputees. METHOD: Amputees attending the Prince of Wales Prosthetic Clinics in 2006 were administered a questionnaire survey of their pain experiences, Short form McGill pain questionnaire, Short Form 36 (SF 36) and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ). RESULTS: Of the 17 who were upper limb amputees (including the two multiple limb amputees), only 1 was pain free and of the 39 who were lower limb amputees 14 were pain free. Upper limb amputees experienced significantly greater proportion, frequency and severity of post-amputation pain than lower limb amputees. The presence of significant pre-operative pain did not correlate with the development of persistent post-amputation pain. In quality of life measures, the amputees experienced a better physical function, role physical and confidence in performance of activities than chronic pain patients attending the pain clinic. Lower limb amputees fared better than upper limb amputees in terms of bodily pain, social function and mental health. However, the amputee groups have a reduced health status in almost all domains compared to the aged matched Australian population norm. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that upper limb amputees are significantly more likely to suffer post-amputation pain which is more frequent, longer lasting and more severe in intensity when compared to lower limb amputees. This is accompanied by reduced HR-QOL especially that related to bodily pain, social function and mental health. The overall health status of amputees are also significantly lower compared to the Australian population norm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".