Análise da aplicabilidade de três instrumentos de avaliação de dor em distintas unidades de atendimento: ambulatório, enfermaria e urgência
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the applicability of pain assessment instruments in three hospital settings. METHODOLOGY: This study comprised 60 patients with musculoskeletal pain cared for at the Conjunto Hospitalar de Sorocaba: orthopedic ward, Rheumatology outpatient clinic, and orthopedic emergency unit. QUESTIONNAIRES: Brief Pain Inventory (BPI); McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ); Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS). RESULTS: In the emergency unit, the male sex predominated, the mean age being 35 years. In the outpatient clinic, 18 men (mean age, 42 years) and two women (mean age, 55 years) were interviewed. In the orthopedic ward, men predominated (mean age, 30.7 years). In the orthopedic emergency unit and ward, the duration of application was shorter for VAS and longer for MPQ. The VAS duration of application was the shortest and did not differ in the three settings. In the orthopedic ward and emergency unit, patients preferred the BPI, and, at the ward, the VAS was the second option. In the outpatient clinic, the patients preferred BPI (80%), followed by MPQ, while the interviewers were equally divided between those same questionnaires. In the orthopedic emergency unit, the interviewers preferred the BPI (40%), and the remaining interviewers were equally divided between the other two instruments. There was more agreement than disagreement between the preferences of patients and interviewers. CONCLUSION: The multidimensional instruments for pain assessment have limitations regarding their applicability in daily health care activities.
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 | 0.019 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".