The Short-FormMcGill Pain Questionnaire-Revised to Evaluate Persistent Pain and Surgery-Related Symptoms in Healthy Women Undergoing a Planned Cesarean Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The incidence of chronic pain after cesarean delivery (CD) has been estimated to range between 0.3% and 18%. This wide range may be explained by differing study methodologies. Furthermore, a comprehensive characterization of pain quality is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate persistent pain in a healthy obstetric population undergoing planned CD and to provide a comprehensive description of pain quality. METHODS: Three hundred eighty-one women with no pain history undergoing CD were included in this prospective, observational cohort study. Spinal anesthesia was standardized, and postoperative pain was recorded at 24 hours. In each woman, pain was assessed at 8 weeks, and 6 and 12 months using questionnaires of pain intensity and interference. Pain quality was assessed using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-Revised. RESULTS: The incidence of persistent pain at 8 weeks was 11% (95% confidence interval, 8%-14%), with pain reported as being mild and interfering with common daily activities by 32% of women. At 6 and 12 months, the incidence was 3% (95% confidence interval, 2%-6%) and 0.6% (95% confidence interval, 0%-2%) respectively, with pain rarely interfering with daily activities. However, 22% of women described other surgery-related symptoms at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of chronic pain at 12 months after planned CD is low (0.6%) and if present symptoms are mostly mild and not interfering with common daily activities. Using Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-Revised, this study provides a comprehensive evaluation of pain quality that can be used as a basis in future post-CD pain trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".