MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of the validation of existing behavioral pain and distress scales for use in the procedural setting

2007· review· en· W1992963059 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dianne Crellin, Thomas P. Sullivan, Franz E Babl, Ronan O’Sullivan, Adrian Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFLACC scaleDistressToddlerMedicineVisual analogue scalePain scaleRating scaleScale (ratio)Pain assessmentClinical psychologyPhysical therapyDevelopmental psychologyPain managementPostoperative painPsychologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Assessing procedural pain and distress in young children is difficult. A number of behavior-based pain and distress scales exist which can be used in preverbal and early-verbal children, and these are validated in particular settings and to variable degrees. METHODS: We identified validated preverbal and early-verbal behavioral pain and distress scales and critically analysed the validation and reliability testing of these scales as well as their use in procedural pain and distress research. We analysed in detail six behavioral pain and distress scales: Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS), Faces Legs Activity Cry Consolability Pain Scale (FLACC), Toddler Preschooler Postoperative Pain Scale (TPPPS), Preverbal Early Verbal Pediatric Pain Scale (PEPPS), the observer Visual Analog Scale (VASobs) and the Observation Scale of Behavioral Distress (OSBD). RESULTS: Despite their use in procedural pain studies none of the behavioral pain scales reviewed had been adequately validated in the procedural setting and validation of the single distress scale was limited. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to validate behavioral pain and distress scales for procedural use in preverbal or early-verbal children.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations139
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnesthesiaSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207