疼痛量表对非外伤性腹痛关键诊断预测的准确性横断面研究

IF 2.9 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-10-05 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.22037/aaem.v11i1.2131
Supapilai Ueareekul, Chanon Changratanakorn, Parinya Tianwibool, Nattikarn Meelarp, Wachira Wongtanasarasin
{"title":"疼痛量表对非外伤性腹痛关键诊断预测的准确性横断面研究","authors":"Supapilai Ueareekul, Chanon Changratanakorn, Parinya Tianwibool, Nattikarn Meelarp, Wachira Wongtanasarasin","doi":"10.22037/aaem.v11i1.2131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Accurate assessment and management of abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) is crucial, as it can indicate potentially life-threatening conditions requiring timely treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the ability of pain scales to predict critical diagnoses in patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary university hospital and involved individuals aged 15 years and above who presented to the ED with non-traumatic abdominal pain. Pain severity was evaluated using subjective pain scales, including the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Face Pain Scale (FPS), as well as objective pain scales, including the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and the Non-verbal Pain Score (NVPS). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) was employed to determine the discriminative ability of each pain scale to predict critical diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>264 cases with the mean age of 47.2±19.4 years were studied (53.0% male). The most common location of abdominal pain was epigastric pain (43.9%). Most patients presented with dull-aching pain, and those with critical diagnoses had more of this characteristic than those with non-critical diagnoses. (52.5% vs. 28.3%, p = 0.01). The overall median NRS, FPS, CPOT, and NVPS of included participants were 8 (interquartile range (IQR) 7-10), 8 (IQR 6-8), 3 (IQR 1-4), and 3 (IQR 2-4), respectively. Patients with critical diagnoses had a higher NVPS score than patients with non-critical diagnoses (median score of 4 vs. 3, p = 0.02). The AuROC of NRS, FPS, CPOT, and NVPS were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.45-0.62), 0.55 (95% CI: 0.46-0.63), 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50-0.68), and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.53-0.71), respectively. The correlation coefficients among these scales were considered moderately correlated or higher.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In evaluating patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain, the NVPS demonstrated the highest accuracy in predicting critical diagnoses. However, all pain scales, whether subjective or objective, exhibited suboptimal performance in predicting critical diagnoses.</p>","PeriodicalId":8146,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":"e68"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10646955/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Pain Scales in Predicting Critical Diagnoses in Non-Traumatic Abdominal Pain Cases; a Cross-sectional Study.\",\"authors\":\"Supapilai Ueareekul, Chanon Changratanakorn, Parinya Tianwibool, Nattikarn Meelarp, Wachira Wongtanasarasin\",\"doi\":\"10.22037/aaem.v11i1.2131\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Accurate assessment and management of abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) is crucial, as it can indicate potentially life-threatening conditions requiring timely treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the ability of pain scales to predict critical diagnoses in patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary university hospital and involved individuals aged 15 years and above who presented to the ED with non-traumatic abdominal pain. Pain severity was evaluated using subjective pain scales, including the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Face Pain Scale (FPS), as well as objective pain scales, including the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and the Non-verbal Pain Score (NVPS). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) was employed to determine the discriminative ability of each pain scale to predict critical diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>264 cases with the mean age of 47.2±19.4 years were studied (53.0% male). The most common location of abdominal pain was epigastric pain (43.9%). Most patients presented with dull-aching pain, and those with critical diagnoses had more of this characteristic than those with non-critical diagnoses. (52.5% vs. 28.3%, p = 0.01). The overall median NRS, FPS, CPOT, and NVPS of included participants were 8 (interquartile range (IQR) 7-10), 8 (IQR 6-8), 3 (IQR 1-4), and 3 (IQR 2-4), respectively. Patients with critical diagnoses had a higher NVPS score than patients with non-critical diagnoses (median score of 4 vs. 3, p = 0.02). The AuROC of NRS, FPS, CPOT, and NVPS were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.45-0.62), 0.55 (95% CI: 0.46-0.63), 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50-0.68), and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.53-0.71), respectively. The correlation coefficients among these scales were considered moderately correlated or higher.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In evaluating patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain, the NVPS demonstrated the highest accuracy in predicting critical diagnoses. However, all pain scales, whether subjective or objective, exhibited suboptimal performance in predicting critical diagnoses.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"e68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10646955/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v11i1.2131\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v11i1.2131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在急诊科(ED)准确评估和管理腹痛是至关重要的,因为它可以提示潜在的危及生命的情况,需要及时治疗。本研究旨在评估疼痛量表对非外伤性腹痛患者关键诊断的预测能力。方法:这项横断面研究是在一家三级大学医院进行的,涉及年龄在15岁及以上的非外伤性腹痛患者。采用主观疼痛量表(包括数值评定量表(NRS)和面部疼痛量表(FPS))和客观疼痛量表(包括重症监护疼痛观察工具(CPOT)和非言语疼痛评分(NVPS))评估疼痛严重程度。采用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AuROC)确定各疼痛量表预测关键诊断的判别能力。结果:共纳入病例264例,平均年龄47.2±19.4岁,其中男性53.0%。最常见的腹痛部位为上腹部疼痛(43.9%)。大多数患者表现为钝痛,诊断为重症的患者比诊断为非重症的患者有更多的这种特征。(52.5%比28.3%,p = 0.01)。纳入受试者的NRS、FPS、CPOT和NVPS的总体中位数分别为8(四分位间距(IQR) 7-10)、8 (IQR 6-8)、3 (IQR 1-4)和3 (IQR 2-4)。危重诊断患者的NVPS评分高于非危重诊断患者(中位评分为4比3,p = 0.02)。NRS、FPS、CPOT和NVPS的AuROC分别为0.53 (95% CI: 0.45-0.62)、0.55 (95% CI: 0.46-0.63)、0.59 (95% CI: 0.50-0.68)和0.62 (95% CI: 0.53-0.71)。这些量表之间的相关系数被认为是中度相关或更高。结论:在评估非外伤性腹痛患者时,NVPS在预测关键诊断方面表现出最高的准确性。然而,所有的疼痛量表,无论是主观的还是客观的,在预测关键诊断方面表现不佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of Pain Scales in Predicting Critical Diagnoses in Non-Traumatic Abdominal Pain Cases; a Cross-sectional Study.

Introduction: Accurate assessment and management of abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) is crucial, as it can indicate potentially life-threatening conditions requiring timely treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the ability of pain scales to predict critical diagnoses in patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary university hospital and involved individuals aged 15 years and above who presented to the ED with non-traumatic abdominal pain. Pain severity was evaluated using subjective pain scales, including the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Face Pain Scale (FPS), as well as objective pain scales, including the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and the Non-verbal Pain Score (NVPS). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) was employed to determine the discriminative ability of each pain scale to predict critical diagnosis.

Results: 264 cases with the mean age of 47.2±19.4 years were studied (53.0% male). The most common location of abdominal pain was epigastric pain (43.9%). Most patients presented with dull-aching pain, and those with critical diagnoses had more of this characteristic than those with non-critical diagnoses. (52.5% vs. 28.3%, p = 0.01). The overall median NRS, FPS, CPOT, and NVPS of included participants were 8 (interquartile range (IQR) 7-10), 8 (IQR 6-8), 3 (IQR 1-4), and 3 (IQR 2-4), respectively. Patients with critical diagnoses had a higher NVPS score than patients with non-critical diagnoses (median score of 4 vs. 3, p = 0.02). The AuROC of NRS, FPS, CPOT, and NVPS were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.45-0.62), 0.55 (95% CI: 0.46-0.63), 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50-0.68), and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.53-0.71), respectively. The correlation coefficients among these scales were considered moderately correlated or higher.

Conclusion: In evaluating patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain, the NVPS demonstrated the highest accuracy in predicting critical diagnoses. However, all pain scales, whether subjective or objective, exhibited suboptimal performance in predicting critical diagnoses.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信