Do anxiety, stress, or depression have any impact on pain perception during shock wave lithotripsy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The most important adverse effect during shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is pain perception. In this study, we evaluated the effect of anxiety, stress, and depression on pain perception during SWL. METHODS: From November 2013 to December 2014, 189 consecutive patients undergoing SWL for kidney stones were evaluated prospectively. Patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index [BMI], urologic intervention history, the presence of a double-j catheter, and stone-related parameters) were also recorded. Anxiety, stress, and depression states were assessed before the first procedure using the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS-42), which is a self-report scale. The degree of pain perception was evaluated with a 10-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at the end of the first SWL session. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in terms of VAS scores during SWL between patients with and without anxiety, stress, or depression (p >0.05). Furthermore, no statistically significant relationships were found between VAS scores and patient age, sex, side of the stone, presence of a double-j stent, number of stones, and SWL experience (p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: According to our findings, anxiety, stress, or depression seemed to have no impact on pain perception during SWL.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".