Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38328655›Full record

ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2024

Breaking barriers: Exploring the Full Cup Test (FCT) pain scale at a tertiary care hospital.

Nida Ghouri, Maria Mushtaq

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Research contributions by Indus Hospital Health & Network faculty.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024
    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

2 authors.

Nida GhouriNida Ghouri, Office of Research, Innovation and Commercialization (ORIC) Indus Hospital & Health Network, Karachi, Pakistan.
Maria MushtaqMaria Mushtaq, Office of Research, Innovation and Commercialization (ORIC) Indus Hospital & Health Network, Karachi, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Pain assessment plays a vital role in the management of patients across various healthcare settings. Accurate and reliable pain evaluation tools are essential for effective pain management and improving patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess ease of Full Cup Test (FCT) as a pain scale and to compare use of FCT with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain evaluation. Methods: A cross-sectional study carried out at a tertiary care hospital from December 2021 to July 2022 on individuals with pain at various body locations. Pain severity was evaluated using two pain assessment tools, the FCT and the VAS. The main objectives of the study were to assess correlation and agreement between the FCT and VAS; using Kappa statistics. Results: Of the total 288 subjects, median age was 42.5 years (IQR: 13-78), and median duration of pain was four months (IQR: one day to forty years). Analysis revealed significant positive correlation (r=0.577) between the Full Cup Test (FCT) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), indicating a relationship between both pain assessment tools. Significant agreement was also observed between FCT and VAS, with a kappa value of 0.596 (p<0.0001). Results however indicated that illiterate patients found it easier to understand FCT compared to VAS. Conclusion: The Full Cup Test (FCT) emerged as a potentially valuable tool for assessing pain severity in a diverse range of patients. Regardless of age, gender, education level, and ethnicity, FCT demonstrated utility with ease in detecting pain severity.

Indexed as

Assessment toolFull cup test (FCT)PainVisual analogue scale (VAS)

Identifiers

PMID38328655
PMCPMC10844905

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.