MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914613022 · doi:10.1186/s12887-018-1380-8

The influence of gestational age in the psychometric testing of the Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates

2019· article· en· W2914613022 on OpenAlexaff
Karin Schenk, Liliane Stoffel, Reto Bürgin, Bonnie Stevens, Dirk Bassler, Sven Schulzke, Mathias Nelle, Eva Cignacco

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pediatrics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of BernUniversität BaselSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCryingGestational ageHeelHeart rateAnesthesiaPhysical therapyPain scaleGestationPain assessmentInter-rater reliabilityConstruct validityPregnancyPsychometricsRating scaleInternal medicineDevelopmental psychologyBlood pressurePain managementClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Assessing pain in neonates is challenging because full-term and preterm neonates of different gestational ages (GAs) have widely varied reactions to pain. We validated the Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates (BPSN) by testing its use among a large sample of neonates that represented all GAs. METHODS: In this prospective multisite validation study, we assessed 154 neonates between 24 2/7 and 41 4/7 weeks GA, based on the results of 1-5 capillary heel sticks in their first 14 days of life. From each heel stick, we produced three video sequences: baseline; heel stick; and, recovery. Five blinded nurses rated neonates' pain responses according to the BPSN. The underlying factor structure of the BPSN, interrater reliability, concurrent validity with the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R), construct validity, sensitivity and specificity, and the relationship between behavioural and physiological indicators were explored. We considered GA and gender as individual contextual factors. RESULTS: The factor analyses resulted in a model where the following behaviours best fit the data: crying; facial expression; and, posture. Pain scores for these behavioural items increased on average more than 1 point during the heel stick phases compared to the baseline and recovery phases (p < 0.001). Among physiological items, heart rate was more sensitive to pain than oxygen saturation. Heart rate averaged 0.646 points higher during the heel stick than the recovery phases (p < 0.001). GA increased along with pain scores: for every additional week of gestation, the average increase of behavioural pain score was 0.063 points (SE = 0.01, t = 5.49); average heart rate increased 0.042 points (SE = 0.01, t = 6.15). Sensitivity and specificity analyses indicated that the cut-off should increase with GA. Modified BPSN showed good concurrent validity with the PIPP-R (r = 0.600-0.758, p < 0.001). Correlations between the modified behavioural subscale and the item heart rate were low (r = 0.102-0.379). CONCLUSIONS: The modified BPSN that includes facial expression, crying, posture, and heart rate is a reliable and valid tool for assessing acute pain in full-term and preterm neonates, but our results suggest that adding different cut-off points for different GA-groups will improve the BPSN's clinical usefulness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered in the database of Clinical Trial gov. Study ID-number: NCT 02749461 . Registration date: 12 April 2016.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PediatricsSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207