Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Pain Rating Scale (pain + rating_scale)
Selected AbstractsValidation of the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale in Pediatric Emergency Department PatientsACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 1 2010Gregory Garra DO Abstract Objectives:, The Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (WBS), used in children to rate pain severity, has been validated outside the emergency department (ED), mostly for chronic pain. The authors validated the WBS in children presenting to the ED with pain by identifying a corresponding mean value of the visual analog scale (VAS) for each face of the WBS and determined the relationship between the WBS and VAS. The hypothesis was that the pain severity ratings on the WBS would be highly correlated (Spearman's rho > 0.80) with those on a VAS. Methods:, This was a prospective, observational study of children ages 8,17 years with pain presenting to a suburban, academic pediatric ED. Children rated their pain severity on a six-item ordinal faces scale (WBS) from none to worst and a 100-mm VAS from least to most. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare mean VAS scores across the six ordinal categories. Spearman's correlation (,) was used to measure agreement between the continuous and ordinal scales. Results:, A total of 120 patients were assessed: the median age was 13 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 10,15 years), 50% were female, 78% were white, and six patients (5%) used a language other than English at home. The most commonly specified locations of pain were extremity (37%), abdomen (19%), and back/neck (11%). The mean VAS increased uniformly across WBS categories in increments of about 17 mm. ANOVA demonstrated significant differences in mean VAS across face groups. Post hoc testing demonstrated that each mean VAS was significantly different from every other mean VAS. Agreement between the WBS and VAS was excellent (, = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86 to 0.93). There was no association between age, sex, or pain location with either pain score. Conclusions:, The VAS was found to have an excellent correlation in older children with acute pain in the ED and had a uniformly increasing relationship with WBS. This finding has implications for research on pain management using the WBS as an assessment tool. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:50,54 © 2009 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine [source] Acetaminophen Versus Acetaminophen With Codeine After Pediatric Tonsillectomy ,THE LARYNGOSCOPE, Issue 11 2000Melinda S. Moir MD Abstract Objective To compare the effectiveness of acetaminophen versus acetaminophen with codeine after pediatric tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Study Design Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Methods Fifty-one children ages 3 to 12 years scheduled for outpatient tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy were studied. Patients were randomly assigned to receive acetaminophen or acetaminophen with codeine in unlabeled bottles for postoperative pain control. The Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale was used to help children quantify their level of pain after surgery. The level of pain, quantity of pain medication required, presence of side effects, and the percentage of a normal diet consumed was recorded for 10 postoperative days. Results There was no difference (P > .05, all time points) in the level of postoperative pain reported by the parents and children in the two groups. The acetaminophen with codeine group tended to have increased problems with nausea, emesis, and constipation, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. Children in the acetaminophen group consumed a significantly higher percentage of a normal diet on the first 6 postoperative days (P < .05, all time points). Conclusion There was no difference in the level of pain control provided by acetaminophen and acetaminophen with codeine as measured by the Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale. Postoperative oral intake was significantly higher in children treated with acetaminophen alone. [source] Topical versus peribulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgeryACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, Issue 6 2003Gangolf Sauder Abstract. Background:,To assess and compare the efficacy and safety of topical versus peribulbar anaesthesia in patients undergoing routine cataract surgery. Methods:,The unicentre, prospective, randomized, clinical interventional trial included 140 consecutive patients undergoing routine cataract surgery performed by one of two surgeons. The patients were randomly distributed to either peribulbar anaesthesia or topical anaesthesia. To assess intraoperative pain, each patient was asked immediately after surgery to quantitate his/her pain using a 10-point pain rating scale. Results:,The study groups did not differ significantly in pain score (p = 0.54), duration of surgery (p = 0.52), anaesthesia-related intraoperative difficulties (p = 0.17), postoperative visual acuity (p = 0.94), overall intraoperative surgical complication rate, blood pressure rise (p = 0.16) or blood oxygen saturation (p = 0.74) Conclusions:,Patient comfort and surgery-related complications did not differ between topical anaesthesia and peribulbar anaesthesia. As there are no significant differences between the two techniques in terms of subjective pain experienced by patients, intraoperative complications and postoperative visual outcome, and in view of the minimally invasive character of topical anaesthesia compared to peribulbar anaesthesia, the present study suggests the use of topical anaesthesia for routine cataract surgery. [source] Oral hypertonic glucose spray: a practical alternative for analgesia in the newbornACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 10 2004M Akçam Aim: Pain and stress have been shown to induce significant physiological and behavioural reactions in newborn infants. Pharmacological agents are not recommended in neonates for pain relief in minor procedures. Since different sweet solutions given orally by syringe have been shown to relieve pain in neonates, we decided to compare the analgesic effects of a small dose of glucose solution given orally by spray and by syringe during heel lancing in term neonates, using a validated behavioural acute pain rating scale. Methods: Sixty hyperbilirubinaemic full-term neonates were studied. We used a randomized, masked, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Each infant was assessed three times receiving 0.5 ml 30% glucose in spray form, 0.5 ml 30% glucose by syringe or 0.5 ml sterile water by syringe in random order, 2 min before heel lancing. Results: Pain scores were significantly lower in the 30% glucose given either spray or syringe groups compared with the placebo group. No statistically significant difference in pain scores was found between the 30% glucose spray group and 30% glucose syringe group. Conclusions: A small dose of 0.5 ml 30% glucose spray has an equal analgesic effect to the same dose given by syringe. The spray form has the advantage of being easy to use and is well accepted by newborn babies. [source] Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scalesJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 7 2005Amelia Williamson MSc Aims and objectives., This review aims to explore the research available relating to three commonly used pain rating scales, the Visual Analogue Scale, the Verbal Rating Scale and the Numerical Rating Scale. The review provides information needed to understand the main properties of the scales. Background., Data generated from pain-rating scales can be easily misunderstood. This review can help clinicians to understand the main features of these tools and thus use them effectively. Method., A MedLine review via PubMed was carried out with no restriction of age of papers retrieved. Papers were examined for methodological soundness before being included. The search terms initially included pain rating scales, pain measurement, Visual Analogue Scale, VAS, Verbal Rating Scale, VRS, Numerical/numeric Rating Scale, NRS. The reference lists of retrieved articles were used to generate more papers and search terms. Only English Language papers were examined. Conclusions., All three pain-rating scales are valid, reliable and appropriate for use in clinical practice, although the Visual Analogue Scale has more practical difficulties than the Verbal Rating Scale or the Numerical Rating Scale. For general purposes the Numerical Rating Scale has good sensitivity and generates data that can be statistically analysed for audit purposes. Patients who seek a sensitive pain-rating scale would probably choose this one. For simplicity patients prefer the Verbal Rating Scale, but it lacks sensitivity and the data it produces can be misunderstood. Relevance to clinical practice., In order to use pain-rating scales well clinicians need to appreciate the potential for error within the tools, and the potential they have to provide the required information. Interpretation of the data from a pain-rating scale is not as straightforward as it might first appear. [source] | ||||||||||