MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989553254 · doi:10.1097/jcn.0000000000000250

Validation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool and Vital Signs in Relation to the Sensory and Affective Components of Pain During Mediastinal Tube Removal in Postoperative Cardiac Surgery Intensive Care Unit Adults

2015· article· en· W1989553254 on OpenAlex
Mădălina Boitor, Jacinthe Lachance Fiola, Céline Gélinas

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityQuebec Network for Research on AgingJewish General HospitalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitVital signsIntensive carePain scaleAnesthesiaPain assessmentHeart ratePhysical therapyBlood pressureIntensive care medicinePain managementInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) is a behavioral scale recommended in clinical practice guidelines for the assessment of pain in nonverbal intensive care unit (ICU) adults. Although the CPOT has been validated in various ICU patient groups, its association with the affective component of pain has not yet been explored, and in most studies, turning was the used nociceptive procedure. AIM: In this study, we aim to validate the use of the CPOT and vital signs in association with the sensory and affective components of pain during mediastinal tube removal (MTR) in postoperative cardiac surgery ICU adults. METHODS: A sample of 125 patients participated in this prospective repeated-measures, within-subject study. A total of 6 assessments of the main study variables (CPOT scores and patients' self-reports of pain intensity and unpleasantness) were completed by trained research assistants while patients were in the ICU. Assessments were done before, during, and 15 minutes after the nonnociceptive procedure (ie, noninvasive blood pressure taking [NIBP]) and nociceptive procedure (ie, MTR). RESULTS: Discriminant validation of the scale use was supported as higher CPOT scores were obtained during MTR (mean [SD], 2.74 [1.61]) compared with NIBP (mean [SD], 0.50 [0.747]) (t124 = 14.33, P < .001). Similarly, higher values were recorded for mean arterial pressure and heart and respiratory rates during MTR compared with NIBP (P < .01). During MTR, CPOT scores correlated significantly with self-report of pain intensity (r = 0.419, P < .01) and unpleasantness (r = 0.313, P < .01), supporting criterion and convergent validation. Conversely, vital signs did not correlate with either self-report. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings confirmed the validity of the CPOT for the assessment of the sensory and affective components of pain in the postcardiac surgery ICU adults. Vital signs were not specific to pain and should be used only as cues to begin further assessment of pain using validated instruments for this purpose.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.238 · 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