MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388231719 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.123.043355

Prevalence, Trajectory, and Predictors of Poststroke Pain: Retrospective Analysis of Pooled Clinical Trial Data Set

2023· article· en· W4388231719 on OpenAlexaff
Myzoon Ali, Holly Tibble, Marian Brady, Terence J. Quinn, Katharina S. Sunnerhagen, Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian, Ashfaq Shuaib, Anand Pandyan, Gillian Mead, Kennedy R. Lees, Anne W. Alexandrov, Philip M. Bath, Erich Bluhmki, Natan M. Bornstein, Christopher Chen, L. Claesson, J. Curram, Stephen M. Davis, HC Diener, Geoffrey A. Donnan, Marc Fisher, M. D. Ginsberg, Barbara Gregson, James C. Grotta, Werner Hacke, Michael G. Hennerici, Marc Hommel, Markku Kaste, Patrick D. Lyden, John R. Marler, Keith W. Muir, Christine Roffe, Philip Teal, N.G. Wahlgren, Steven Warach, A. Ashburn, David Barer, Anne Barzel, Julie Bernhardt, Audrey Bowen, Avril Drummond, J. Edmans, Chloe J. English, John Gladman, Erin Godecke, Sinikka Hiekkala, Tammy Hoffman, L Kalra, Suzanne Kuys, Peter Langhorne, Ann Charlotte Laska, Pip Logan, Björn Machner, Jacqui Morris, Allyson M Pollock, Valerie M. Pomeroy, Helen Rodgers, Catherine Sackley, Lisa Shaw, David J. Stott, Sarah Tyson, Paulette van Vliet, Marion Walker, William Whiteley, Daniel F. Hanley, Kenneth Butcher, Stephan A. Mayer, Thorsten Steiner

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangePhysical therapyStroke (engine)Quality of life (healthcare)Odds ratioPsychological interventionHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleAnxietyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Poststroke pain remains underdiagnosed and inadequately managed. To inform the optimum time to initiate interventions, we examined prevalence, trajectory, and participant factors associated with poststroke pain. METHODS: Eligible studies from the VISTA (Virtual International Stroke Trials Archives) included an assessment of pain. Analyses of individual participant data examined demography, pain, mobility, independence, language, anxiety/depression, and vitality. Pain assessments were standardized to the European Quality of Life Scale (European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level) pain domain, describing no, moderate, or extreme pain. We described pain prevalence, associations between participant characteristics, and pain using multivariable models. RESULTS: From 94 studies (n>48 000 individual participant data) in VISTA, 10 (n=10 002 individual participant data) included a pain assessment. Median age was 70.0 years (interquartile range [59.0-77.1]), 5560 (55.6%) were male, baseline stroke severity was National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 10 (interquartile range [7-15]). Reports of extreme pain ranged between 3% and 9.5% and were highest beyond 2 years poststroke (31/328 [9.5%]); pain trajectory varied by study. Poorer independence was significantly associated with presence of moderate or extreme pain (5 weeks-3 months odds ratio [OR], 1.5 [95% CI, 1.4-1.6]; 4-6 months OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.3-2.1]; >6 months OR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.2-2.0]), and increased severity of pain (5 weeks-3 months: OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]; 4-6 months OR, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]; >6 months, OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]), after adjusting for covariates. Anxiety/depression and lower vitality were each associated with pain severity. CONCLUSIONS: Between 3% and 9.5% of participants reported extreme poststroke pain; the presence and severity of pain were independently associated with dependence at each time point. Future studies could determine whether and when interventions may reduce the prevalence and severity of poststroke 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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207