MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791755250 · doi:10.1002/ejp.1203

Catastrophizing, pain and traumatic stress symptoms following burns: A prospective study

2018· article· en· W2791755250 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy E. E. Van Loey, I. Klein‐König, A.E.E. de Jong, Helma W. C. Hofland, Els Vandermeulen, Iris M. Engelhard

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health
FundersFonds NutsOhra
KeywordsPain catastrophizingChronic painMedicineCognitionPhysical therapyProspective cohort studyClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pain and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are significant problems in the aftermath of a burn injury and they often co-occur. Catastrophizing has been linked to both phenomena. The aim of this study was to investigate the underlying role of catastrophizing in PTSD symptoms and pain following burns. METHODS: This prospective study included 216 patients with burns. PTSD symptoms and pain were measured during hospitalization (T1) and 6 (T2) and 12 months (T3) postburn. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) indexed PTSD symptoms. Acute pain (T1) was the mean pain during the first two weeks of hospitalization measured using an 11-point graphic numeric rating scale. Chronic pain was indexed using the single item 'average' pain from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Catastrophizing was measured at T1 and T2 using the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ). Data were analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM). RESULTS: The results showed that T2 catastrophizing mediated between acute and chronic PTSD symptoms, and T3 pain. Furthermore, the study revealed significant associations between catastrophizing, PTSD symptoms and pain at the respective measurements, and significant longitudinal associations between the constructs. CONCLUSION: A negative cognitive-affective response to a burn event, such as catastrophizing, mediated the relationship between acute and chronic PTSD symptoms and later chronic pain. Screening for catastrophizing and acute PTSD symptoms is recommended to identify persons at risk for chronic PTSD symptoms and pain. SIGNIFICANCE: The identification of individuals who have the tendency to catastrophize may assist in finding those at risk for development of both chronic PTSD symptoms and chronic pain. Individuals may benefit from early psychological therapy focussing on catastrophizing and acute PTSD symptoms that may ameliorate both chronic PTSD symptoms and pain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.277
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 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

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207