Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32322445›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Clinical applicability of the Feline Grimace Scale: real-time versus image scoring and the influence of sedation and surgery.

Marina C Evangelista, Javier Benito, Beatriz P Monteiro, Ryota Watanabe, Graeme M Doodnaught, Daniel S J Pang, Paulo V Steagall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Video-based compilation of acute pain behaviours in cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marina C EvangelistaDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada.
Javier BenitoDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada.
Beatriz P MonteiroDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada.
Ryota WatanabeDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada.
Graeme M DoodnaughtDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada.
Daniel S J PangDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada.
Paulo V SteagallDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Feline Grimace Scale (FGS) is a facial expression-based scoring system for acute pain assessment in cats with reported validity using image assessment. The aims of this study were to investigate the clinical applicability of the FGS in real-time when compared with image assessment, and to evaluate the influence of sedation and surgery on FGS scores in cats.

methodsSixty-five female cats (age: 1.37 ± 0.9 years and body weight: 2.85 ± 0.76 kg) were included in a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Cats were sedated with intramuscular acepromazine and buprenorphine. Following induction with propofol, anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane and cats underwent ovariohysterectomy (OVH). Pain was evaluated at baseline, 15 min after sedation, and at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 h after extubation using the FGS in real-time (FGS-RT). Cats were video-recorded simultaneously at baseline, 15 min after sedation, and at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h after extubation for subsequent image assessment (FGS-IMG), which was performed six months later by the same observer. The agreement between FGS-RT and FGS-IMG scores was calculated using the Bland & Altman method for repeated measures. The effects of sedation (baseline versus 15 min) and OVH (baseline versus 24 h) were assessed using linear mixed models. Responsiveness to the administration of rescue analgesia (FGS scores before versus one hour after) was assessed using paired

resultsMinimal bias (-0.057) and narrow limits of agreement (-0.351 to 0.237) were observed between the FGS-IMG and FGS-RT. Scores at baseline (FGS-RT: 0.16 ± 0.13 and FGS-IMG: 0.14 ± 0.13) were not different after sedation (FGS-RT: 0.2 ± 0.15,

conclusionsReal-time assessment slightly overestimates image scoring; however, with minimal clinical impact. Sedation with acepromazine-buprenorphine and ovariohysterectomy using a balanced anesthetic protocol did not influence the FGS scores. Responsiveness to analgesic administration was observed with both the FGS-RT and FGS-IMG.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaFeline grimace scaleOvariohysterectomyPainPain assessmentPain scoringSedationSurgery

Identifiers

PMID32322445
PMCPMC7164424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.