MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078353056 · doi:10.4103/1658-354x.152874

Postoperative pain assessment using four behavioral scales in Pakistani children undergoing elective surgery

2015· article· en· W2078353056 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Anaesthesia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFLACC scalePacuMedicinePain assessmentPain scalePopulationPhysical therapyAnesthesiaPediatricsPostoperative painPain management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several measurement tools have been used for assessment of postoperative pain in pediatric patients. Self-report methods have limitations in younger children and parent, nurse or physician assessment can be used as a surrogate measure. These tools should be tested in different cultures as pain can be influenced by sociocultural factors. The objective was to assess the inter-rater agreement on four different behavioral pain assessment scales in our local population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, descriptive, observational study was conducted in Pakistan. American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II children, 3-7 years of age, undergoing elective surgery were enrolled. Four pain assessment scales were used, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS), Toddler Preschool Postoperative Pain Scale (TPPPS), objective pain scale (OPS), and Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC). After 15 and 60 min of arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), each child evaluated his/her postoperative pain by self-reporting and was also independently assessed by the PACU nurse, PACU anesthetist and the parent. The sensitivity and specificity of the responses of the four pain assessment scales were compared to the response of the child. RESULTS: At 15 min, sensitivity and specificity were >60% for doctors and nurses on FLACC, OPS, and CHEOPS scales and for FLACC and CHEOPS scale for the parents. Parents showed poor agreement on OPS and TPPS. At 60 min, sensitivity was poor on the OPS scale by all three observers. Nurses showed a lower specificity on FLACC tool. Parents had poor specificity on CHEOPS and rate of false negatives was high with TPPS. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the use of FLACC scale for assessment by parents, nurses, and doctors in Pakistani children aged between 3 and 7.

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)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.291 · 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