MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A comparison of patients' and nurses' assessments of pain intensity in patients with coronary artery disease

2008· article· en· W2029144100 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nayyereh Davoudi, Pooran Afsharzadeh, Sakineh Mohammad‐Alizadeh‐Charandabi, Ali Akbar Haghdoost

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineIntensity (physics)Physical therapyCoronary artery diseaseRating scaleInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-report of pain is the single most reliable indicator of pain intensity. The purpose of this study was to compare patients' and nurses' ratings of patients' pain. The sample comprised 76 patients and 65 nurses in coronary care units that rated the patient's pain intensity on a 0-10 numeric rating scale. Results showed that the mean scores of nurses were lower than their patients significantly (P < 0.01). Also, nurses assessed patients' pain intensity accurately 60% of the time. Overestimations and underestimations were 12.4% and 27.6% respectively. In addition, there were positive, moderate and significant correlations between patients' and nurses' ratings (r = 0.41, P < 0.001). Underestimation of patient's pain can have negative effects if appropriate treatment is withheld. This emphasizes the importance of a systematic assessment and acceptance of the patient's self-reported of pain.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing PracticeSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207