Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35345592›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2022

Multilingual validation of the short form of the Unesp-Botucatu Feline Pain Scale (UFEPS-SF).

Stelio P L Luna, Pedro H E Trindade, Beatriz P Monteiro, Nadia Crosignani, Giorgia Della Rocca, Helene L M Ruel, Kazuto Yamashita, Peter Kronen, Chia Te Tseng, Lívia Teixeira and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Development and Validation of the Unesp-Botucatu Goat Acute Pain Scale.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 8 countries.

Stelio P L LunaDepartment of Veterinary Surgery and Animal Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Pedro H E TrindadeDepartment of Veterinary Surgery and Animal Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Beatriz P MonteiroDépartement de Sciences Cliniques, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada.
Nadia CrosignaniDepartment of Clinics and Veterinary Hospital, School of Veterinary, University of Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Giorgia Della RoccaDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Research Center on Animal Pain, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
Helene L M RuelDépartement de Sciences Cliniques, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada.
Kazuto YamashitaDepartment of Companion Animal Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Rakuno Gakuen University, Ebetsu, Japan.
Peter KronenUniversity of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Chia Te TsengCrown Veterinary Specialists, Lebanon, NJ, United States of America.
Lívia TeixeiraDepartment of Veterinary Surgery and Animal Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Paulo V SteagallDépartement de Sciences Cliniques, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada.
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRUniversité de Montréal · CACarolina Veterinary Specialists · USRakuno Gakuen University · JPUniversidad de Montevideo · UYUniversity of Perugia · ITUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pain is the leading cause of animal suffering, hence the importance of validated tools to ensure its appropriate evaluation and treatment. We aimed to test the psychometric properties of the short form of the Unesp-Botucatu Feline Pain Scale (UFEPS-SF) in eight languages. Methods: The original scale was condensed from ten to four items. The content validation was performed by five specialists in veterinary anesthesia and analgesia. The English version of the scale was translated and back-translated into Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese and Spanish by fluent English and native speaker translators. Videos of the perioperative period of 30 cats submitted to ovariohysterectomy (preoperative, after surgery, after rescue analgesia and 24 h after surgery) were randomly evaluated twice (one-month interval) by one evaluator for each language unaware of the pain condition. After watching each video, the evaluators scored the unidimensional, UFEPS-SF and Glasgow composite multidimensional feline pain scales. Statistical analyses were carried out using R software for intra and interobserver reliability, principal component analysis, criteria concurrent and predictive validities, construct validity, item-total correlation, internal consistency, specificity, sensitivity, the definition of the intervention score for rescue analgesia and diagnostic uncertainty zone, according to the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: UFEPS-SF intra- and inter-observer reliability were ≥0.92 and 0.84, respectively, for all observers. According to the principal component analysis, UFEPS-SF is a unidimensional scale. Concurrent criterion validity was confirmed by the high correlation between UFEPS-SF and all other scales (≥0.9). The total score and all items of UFEPS-SF increased after surgery (pain), decreased to baseline after analgesia and were intermediate at 24 h after surgery (moderate pain), confirming responsiveness and construct validity. Item total correlation of each item (0.68-0.83) confirmed that the items contributed homogeneously to the total score. Internal consistency was excellent (≥0.9) for all items. Both specificity (baseline) and sensitivity (after surgery) based on the Youden index was 99% (97-100%). The suggestive cut-off score for the administration of analgesia according to the ROC curve was ≥4 out of 12. The diagnostic uncertainty zone ranged from 3 to 4. The area under the curve of 0.99 indicated excellent discriminatory capacity of UFEPS-SF. Conclusions: The UFEPS-SF and its items, assessed by experienced evaluators, demonstrated very good repeatability and reproducibility, content, criterion and construct validities, item-total correlation, internal consistency, excellent sensitivity and specificity and a cut-off point indicating the need for rescue analgesia in Chinese, French, English, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese and Spanish.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaPostoperative PainAnimalsCatsLanguageReproducibility of ResultsTranslatingAnalgesiaAnimal welfareCatsFelidaeFelinePainPain scalePostoperative careReliabilityValidation study

Identifiers

PMID35345592
PMCPMC8957279
OpenAlexW4226263892

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.