Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34352001›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A critical evaluation for validation of composite and unidimensional postoperative pain scales in horses.

Paula Barreto da Rocha, Bernd Driessen, Sue M McDonnell, Klaus Hopster, Laura Zarucco, Miguel Gozalo-Marcilla, Charlotte Hopster-Iversen, Pedro Henrique Esteves Trindade, Thamiris Kristine Gonzaga da Rocha, Marilda Onghero Taffarel and 3 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Editorial: Advancements in equine pain management.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Development and Validation of the Unesp-Botucatu Goat Acute Pain Scale.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Development of a Composite Pain Scale in Foals: A Pilot Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

13 authors.

Paula Barreto da RochaDepartment of Surgical Specialties and Anesthesiology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Bernd DriessenDepartment of Clinical Studies, New Bolton Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Sue M McDonnellDepartment of Clinical Studies, New Bolton Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Klaus HopsterDepartment of Clinical Studies, New Bolton Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Laura ZaruccoDipartimento di Scienze Veterinarie, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Italy.
Miguel Gozalo-MarcillaThe Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and the Roslin Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom.
Charlotte Hopster-IversenDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Section of Medicine and Surgery, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
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.
Thamiris Kristine Gonzaga da RochaDepartment of Veterinary Surgery and Animal Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Marilda Onghero TaffarelDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Maringá State University, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil.
Bruna Bodini AlonsoFaculty of Animal Science and Food Engineering, Sao Paulo State University, Botucatu, Brazil.
Stijn SchauvliegeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Domestic Animal Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
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

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proper pain therapy requires adequate pain assessment. This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the Unesp-Botucatu horse acute pain scale (UHAPS), the Orthopedic Composite Pain Scale (CPS) and unidimensional scales in horses admitted for orthopedic and soft tissue surgery. Forty-two horses were assessed and videotaped before surgery, up to 4 hours postoperatively, up to 3 hours after analgesic treatment, and 24 hours postoperatively (168 video clips). After six evaluators viewing each edited video clip twice in random order at a 20-day interval, they chose whether analgesia would be indicated and applied the Simple Descriptive, Numeric and Visual Analog scales, CPS, and UHAPS. For all evaluators, intra-observer reliability of UHAPS and CPS ranged from 0.70 to 0.97. Reproducibility was variable among the evaluators and ranged from poor to very good for all scales. Principal component analysis showed a weak association among 50% and 62% of the UHAPS and CPS items, respectively. Criterion validity based on Spearman correlation among all scales was above 0.67. Internal consistency was minimally acceptable (0.51-0.64). Item-total correlation was acceptable (0.3-0.7) for 50% and 38% of UHAPS and CPS items, respectively. UHAPS and CPS were specific (90% and 79% respectively), but both were not sensitive (43 and 38%, respectively). Construct validity (responsiveness) was confirmed for all scales because pain scores increased after surgery. The cut-off point for rescue analgesia was ≥ 5 and ≥ 7 for the UHAPS and CPS, respectively. All scales presented adequate repeatability, criterion validity, and partial responsiveness. Both composite scales showed poor association among items, minimally acceptable internal consistency, and weak sensitivity, indicating that they are suboptimal instruments for assessing postoperative pain. Both composite scales require further refinement with the exclusion of redundant or needless items and reduction of their maximum score applied to each item or should be replaced by other tools.

Indexed as

AnimalsFemaleHorse DiseasesHorsesMalePain ManagementPain MeasurementPostoperative Pain

Identifiers

PMID34352001
PMCPMC8341545

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.