MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334841864 · doi:10.5812/aapm.36461

Evaluating Persistent Postoperative Pain in One Tertiary Hospital: Incidence, Quality of Life, Associated Factors, and Treatment

2016· article· en· W2334841864 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luís Guimarães‐Pereira, Inês Valdoleiros, Pedro Reis, F. Abelha

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology and Pain Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)KowsarQuality of life (healthcare)Tertiary levelTertiary careSurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Persistent postoperative pain (PPP) is defined as persistent pain after surgery of greater than three months' duration. OBJECTIVES: Identify the incidence of PPP in our hospital and its associated factors; evaluate quality of life (QoL) and treatment of patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational prospective study in adults proposed to various types of surgery using the brief pain inventory short form preoperatively (T0), one day after surgery, and three months later (T3). If the patient had pain at T3 and other causes of pain were excluded, they were considered to have PPP, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire Short Form was applied. QoL was measured with the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five patients completed the study. The incidence of PPP was 28%, and the affected patients presented lower QoL. The majority referred to a moderate to severe level of interference in their general activity. Cholecystectomies were less associated with PPP, and total knee/hip replacements were more associated with it. Preoperative pain, preoperative benzodiazepines or antidepressants, and more severe acute postoperative pain were associated with the development of PPP. Half of the patients with PPP were under treatment, and they refer a mean symptomatic relief of 69%. CONCLUSIONS: This study, apart from attempting to better characterize the problem of PPP, emphasizes the lack of its treatment.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiology and Pain MedicineSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207