MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328342987 · doi:10.1155/2005/781916

Pain in the Emergency Department with One‐Week Follow‐Up of Pain Resolution

2005· article· en· W2328342987 on OpenAlexafffund
Céleste Johnston, Anita J. Gagnon, Carolyn Pepler, Patricia Bourgault

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineResolution (logic)Medical emergencyPsychologyEmergency medicinePsychiatryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the intensity of pain in the emergency department (ED), the use of analgesics in relation to pain intensity, which patients are at risk for unresolved pain at one week post-discharge, and the postdischarge treatment of pain. METHODS: Patients (n=871) admitted to two urban, university-affiliated EDs who were experiencing any pain were recruited on different shifts over the summer months of 1997. Pain intensity was self-reported, and chart reviews of the assessment, immediate treatment and follow-up prescriptions were conducted. Patients (n=699) were contacted one week later, and reports of pain intensity, activity, resuming normal functions and patient attitudes toward pain were documented. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed on the results of patients with complete data (n=585). RESULTS: Mean pain intensity on admission was 6.0 (SD=2.5) on a zero to 10 visual analogue scale, and 5.0 (SD=2.9) at discharge (n=871). One-quarter (23%) of patients were given analgesics while in the ED; their mean pain intensity was 7.0 (95% CI 6.7 to 7.3) versus 5.7 (95% CI 5.5 to 5.9) for those who were not given analgesics (P<0.001). At one week, the mean intensity for worst pain in the past 24 h was 5.2 (SD=2.9) and the usual pain intensity was 3.7 (SD=2.6). Using a cutoff point of pain greater than three on the zero to 10 visual analogue scale as residual pain at one week, 35% (n=207) remained in pain, with musculoskeletal pain accounting for half (n=102) of those cases. Logistic regression showed that the following patients were most likely to have pain at one week: women; those with pain present longer than 48 h before ED visit; those with a high discharge pain rating; those who were taking analgesics; and those who had pain of musculoskeletal origin. Both the attitudes and beliefs about pain and the treatment of pain while in the ED or on discharge were unrelated to the presence of residual pain at one week. An examination of the same factors in relation to the return to normal activities found that they were similar, with the exception that admission and not discharge pain intensity was predictive of not returning to normal activities. CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of patients presenting to the ED with pain do not experience resolution of their pain. Women presenting with severe musculoskeletal pain of more than a week in duration are less likely to have resolution of their pain and to return to normal activities within a week of the ED visit.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations41
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207