Validation of the surgical pain scales in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 198-204

  Barber, Matthew D ^a   Janz, Nancy ^b   Kenton, Kim ^c   Hsu, Yvonne ^d   Greer, W Jerod ^e   Dyer, Keisha ^f   White, Amanda ^g   Meikle, Susan ^h   Ye, Wen ^b  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF UTAH HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^h EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

Author keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse; Pelvic reconstructive surgery; Postoperative pain; Scales

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION METHODS; SURGERY; UROLOGY;

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; EFFECT SIZE; ERROR RATE; LONGITUDINAL DATA; NUMERICAL RATING SCALE; PEARSON CORRELATION; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES; RANDOMIZED TRIAL; RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY; SCALES; STRESS URINARY INCONTINENCES; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

HEALTH;

AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR ACTIVITY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PSYCHOMETRY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; REST; STRESS INCONTINENCE;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REST; URINARY INCONTINENCE, STRESS;

EID: 84864714574     PISSN: 21518378     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31825d65aa     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Jamison RN, Ross MJ, Hoopman P, et al. Assessment of postoperative pain management: patient satisfaction and perceived helpfulness. Clin J Pain 1997;13(3):229-236.
2. McCarthy M Jr, Chang CH, Pickard AS, et al. Visual analog scales for assessing surgical pain. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201(2):245-252.
3. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 Health Survery: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: Heath Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.
4. Eckardt AJ, Swales C, Bhattacharya K, et al. Open access colonoscopy in the training setting: which factors affect patient satisfaction and pain? Endoscopy 2008;40(2):98-105.
5. Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ, et al. The burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(suppl 4):S39-S51.
6. Katz J, Melzack R. Measurement of pain. Surg Clin North Am 1999;79(2):231-252.
7. Gagliese L, Weizblit N, Ellis W, et al. The measurement of postoperative pain: a comparison of intensity scales in younger and older surgical patients. Pain 2005;117(3):412-420.
8. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Menefee S, et al. Operations and pelvic muscle training in the management of apical support loss (OPTIMAL) trial: design and methods. Contemp Clin Trials 2009;30(2):178-189.
9. Heit M, Culligan P, Rosenquist C, et al. Is pelvic organ prolapse a cause of pelvic or low back pain? Obstet Gynecol 2002;99(1):23-28.
10. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56(5):395-407.
11. Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, et al. Assessment of pain. Br J Anesth 2008;101:17-24.
12. Hadjistavropoulos T, Herr K, Turk DC, et al. An interdisciplinary expert consensus statement on assessment of pain in older persons. Clin J Pain 2007;23(suppl 1):S1-S43.
13. Jones KA, Shepherd JP, Oliphant SS, et al. Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979-2006. Am J Obstet Gyncol 2010;202(5):501.e1-501.e7.
14. Yost KJ, Sorensen MV, Hahn EA, et al. Using multiple anchor- and distribution-based estimates to evaluate clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument. Value Health 2005;8(2):117-127.
15. Leidy NK, Wyrwich KW. Bridging the gap: using triangulation methodology to estimate minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). COPD 2005;2(1):157-165.
16. Barber MD, Kenton K, Janz NK, et al. Validation of the Activities Assessment Scale in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery. FPMRS 2012. 2012;18(4).