Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32480399›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Validation of the UNESP-Botucatu pig composite acute pain scale (UPAPS).

Stelio Pacca Loureiro Luna, Ana Lucélia de Araújo, Pedro Isidro da Nóbrega Neto, Juliana Tabarelli Brondani, Flávia Augusta de Oliveira, Liliane Marinho Dos Santos Azerêdo, Felipe Garcia Telles, Pedro Henrique Esteves Trindade

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stelio Pacca Loureiro LunaDepartment of Veterinary Surgery and Animal Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-5312-9076
Ana Lucélia de AraújoPost graduation Program in Anaesthesiology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Pedro Isidro da Nóbrega NetoHealth and Rural Technology Centre, Federal University of Campina Grande (UFCG), Patos, Paraíba, Brazil.
Juliana Tabarelli BrondaniDepartment of Veterinary Surgery and Animal Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Flávia Augusta de OliveiraPost graduation Program in Anaesthesiology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Liliane Marinho Dos Santos AzerêdoHealth and Rural Technology Centre, Federal University of Campina Grande (UFCG), Patos, Paraíba, Brazil.
Felipe Garcia TellesDepartment of Veterinary Surgery and Animal Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Pedro Henrique Esteves TrindadeDepartment of Veterinary Surgery and Animal Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRUniversidade Federal de Campina Grande · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The creation of species-specific valid tools for pain assessment is essential to recognize pain and determine the requirement and efficacy of analgesic treatments. This study aimed to assess behaviour and investigate the validity and reliability of an acute pain scale in pigs undergoing orchiectomy. Forty-five pigs aged 38±3 days were castrated under local anaesthesia. Behaviour was video-recorded 30 minutes before and intermittently up to 24 hours after castration. Edited footage (before surgery, after surgery before and after rescue analgesia, and 24 hours postoperatively) was analysed twice (one month apart) by one observer who was present during video-recording (in-person researcher) and three blinded observers. Statistical analysis was performed using R software and differences were considered significant when p<0.05. Intra and inter-observer agreement, based on intra-class correlation coefficient, was good or very good between most observers (>0.60), except between observers 1 and 3 (moderate agreement 0.57). The scale was unidimensional according to principal component analysis. The scale showed acceptable item-total Spearman correlation, excellent predictive and concurrent criterion validity (Spearman correlation ≥ 0.85 between the proposed scale versus visual analogue, numerical rating, and simple descriptive scales), internal consistency (Cronbach's α coefficient >0.80 for all items), responsiveness (the pain scores of all items of the scale increased after castration and decreased after intervention analgesia according to Friedman test), and specificity (> 95%). Sensitivity was good or excellent for most of the items. The optimal cut-off point for rescue analgesia was ≥ 6 of 18. Discriminatory ability was excellent for all observers according to the area under the curve (>0.95). The proposed scale is a reliable and valid instrument and may be used clinically and experimentally to assess postoperative acute pain in pigs. The well-defined cut-off point supports the evaluator´s decision to provide or not analgesia.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaAnimalsMaleObserver VariationOrchiectomyPain MeasurementPostoperative PainPrincipal Component AnalysisSoftwareSwine

Identifiers

PMID32480399
PMCPMC7263847
OpenAlexW3031841322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.