Changes in Pain Score Associated With Clinically Meaningful Outcomes in Children With Acute Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying changes in pain score associated with clinically meaningful outcomes is necessary when using self-report measures to assess pain in children. We aimed to determine the changes in pain score associated with a minimum clinically significant difference (MCSD), ideal clinically significant difference (ICSD), and patient-perceived adequate analgesia (PPAA) and to evaluate for differences based on initial pain intensity and patient characteristics. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of children 6 to 17 and 4 to 17 years old who were assessed using the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS) and Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R), respectively. Children qualitatively described any endorsed change in pain score; those who received an analgesic were asked if they wanted additional analgesics to decrease their pain intensity. We used a receiver operating characteristic curve-based methodology to identify changes in pain score associated with "a little less" and "much less" pain (MCSD and ICSD, respectively) and patients declining additional analgesics because of adequate analgesia (PPAA). RESULTS: We enrolled 431 children with painful conditions. For the VNRS, raw change and percent reductions in pain scores associated with MCSD, ICSD, and PPAA were 2/10 and 20%, 3/10 and 44%, and 2/10 and 29%, respectively, and for the FPS-R, 2/10 and 33%, 4/10 and 60%, and 4/10 and 40%, respectively. Raw change in pain scores increased with increasing initial pain intensity, but percent reductions remained stable. There were no significant differences based on patient characteristics such as age, sex, and race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide patient-centered outcomes in children that are suitable for designing trials and are generalizable across patient characteristics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".