MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547643369 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001679

Performance of the Angle Labor Pain Questionnaire During Initiation of Epidural Analgesia in Early Active Labor

2016· article· en· W2547643369 on OpenAlexaff
Pamela Angle, Christine Kurtz Landy, Jasmine Djordjevic, Jon Barrett, Alanna Kibbe, Saiena Sriparamananthan, Yuna Lee, Lydia Hamata, Pearl Zaki, Alex Kiss

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLabor painPhysical therapyPain scaleTest (biology)Cronbach's alphaRating scaleVisual analogue scaleConcurrent validityPsychometricsClinical psychologyPsychologyInternal consistencyPregnancyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Angle Labor Pain Questionnaire (A-LPQ) is a new, 22-item multidimensional psychometric questionnaire that measures the 5 most important dimensions of women's childbirth pain experiences using 5 subscales: The Enormity of the Pain, Fear/Anxiety, Uterine Contraction Pain, Birthing Pain, and Back Pain/Long Haul. Previous work showed that the A-LPQ has overall good psychometric properties and performance during early active labor in women without pain relief. The current study assessed the tool's sensitivity to change during initiation of labor epidural analgesia with the standardized response mean (SRM, primary outcome). METHODS: Two versions of the A-LPQ were administered once, in each of 2 test sessions, by the same trained interviewer during early active labor. The sequence of administration was randomized (ie, standard question order version [Test 1] followed by mixed version [Test 2] or vice versa). Test 1 was completed before epidural insertion; Test 2 commenced 20 to 30 minutes after the test dose. Providers assessed/treated pain independently of the study. Sensitivity to change was assessed using SRMs, Cohen's d, and paired t tests. Overall pain intensity was concurrently examined using Numeric Rating Scale and the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS); coping was assessed with the Pain Mastery Scale. Changes in pain were measured with the Patient Global Impression of Change Scale. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's α. Concurrent validity with other tools was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 51 complete datasets were analyzed. Most women reported moderate (63%, 32/51) or severe (18%, 9/51) baseline pain on VRS scores during Test 1; 29% (15/51) reported mild pain, and 6% (3/51) reported moderate pain during Test 2. Approximately 90% (46/51) of women reported much or very much improved pain at the end of testing. Cronbach's α for A-LPQ summary scores was excellent (0.94) and ranged from 0.78 (acceptable) to 0.92 (excellent) for subscales (Test 1). Large SRMs were found for A-LPQ summary scores (1.6, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.1) and all subscales except the Birthing Pain subscale (moderate, 0.60, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.97). Significant (P < .001) differences were found between A-LPQ summary scores and between all subscales on paired t tests. Correlations between A-LPQ summary and Numeric Rating Scale scores (overall pain intensity) were strong (ρ > 0.73), correlations were moderate (ρ > 0.5) with VRS scores and coping scores (ρ > 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support A-LPQ use for measurement of women's childbirth pain experiences during initiation of labor epidural analgesia during early active labor. Combined with our previous work, they also support the use of the A-LPQ in late labor and at delivery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207