Suppr超能文献

gagging问题评估:重新评估。 (注:“gagging”在这里可能是特定医学语境下的专业术语,比如与“恶心、呕吐反射相关的某种表现”等,具体含义需结合原文完整内容确定,单纯看这一个短语不太好准确翻译为非常贴切的中文词汇。) 不过如果只要求按字面翻译就是: gagging问题评估:重新评估。 严格来说“gagging problem”直译为“作呕问题”不太符合医学专业语境习惯,这里按照字面意思进行了翻译。建议结合完整文本进一步优化表述。 准确的译文: gagging问题评估:重新评估。 (如果“gagging”是特定专业术语可替换为其准确的中文释义,比如“咽反射相关问题评估:重新评估” ,这里假设不知道其确切含义,仅按字面进行了翻译。)

Gagging Problem Assessment: a re-evaluation.

作者信息

van Linden van den Heuvell G F E C, de Boer B, Ter Pelkwijk B J, Bildt M M, Stegenga B

机构信息

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Private Dental Practice, Grou, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Oral Rehabil. 2015 Jul;42(7):495-502. doi: 10.1111/joor.12280. Epub 2015 Feb 12.

Abstract

The Gagging Problem Assessment (GPA) is an instrument to evaluate dental gagging. Although the GPA seemed to be reliable and valid in a pilot study, a replication study with more subjects was needed. Based on the pilot study, the number of items was reduced, resulting in the revised version of the GPA (GPA-R). The aims of this study were to replicate the reliability of the GPA-R and to investigate the correlation between dental gagging and general anxiety. Dental gagging patients (n = 59) were compared with a control group (n = 17) at t0 and 3 weeks later. The 'gagging group' also filled in the SCL-90 anxiety scale. Gagging-specific homogenous domains and internal consistency were determined. Stability and distinguishing capacity of the GPA-R were assessed. SCL-90-Anxiety scores were compared with standard values in a non-clinical population. The GPA-R patient part was able to reliably discriminate between the absence or the presence of dental gagging. However, the reliability of the GPA-R-dentist part was insufficient. The GPA-R seems to be sensitive to subtle differences in acts of the dentists. To overcome these problems, more detailed and explicit instructions on how to use the GPA-R should be formulated and more specific gagging stimuli should be included. The 'gagging group' reported 'fear of choking' significantly more often than the control group (P = 0·008). This finding might be important for the treatment of dental gagging. Considering the outcome of our study, development of a new diagnostic gagging tool needs another approach that focuses on gagging severity.

摘要

恶心问题评估(GPA)是一种用于评估牙科恶心反应的工具。尽管在一项初步研究中GPA似乎具有可靠性和有效性,但仍需要对更多受试者进行重复研究。基于初步研究,减少了项目数量,从而产生了GPA的修订版(GPA-R)。本研究的目的是重复GPA-R的可靠性,并调查牙科恶心反应与一般焦虑之间的相关性。在t0时以及3周后,将牙科恶心反应患者(n = 59)与对照组(n = 17)进行比较。“恶心反应组”还填写了SCL-90焦虑量表。确定了恶心反应特异性的同质领域和内部一致性。评估了GPA-R的稳定性和区分能力。将SCL-90焦虑评分与非临床人群的标准值进行比较。GPA-R患者部分能够可靠地区分是否存在牙科恶心反应。然而,GPA-R牙医部分的可靠性不足。GPA-R似乎对牙医行为的细微差异敏感。为克服这些问题,应制定关于如何使用GPA-R的更详细、明确的说明,并应纳入更具体的恶心刺激因素。“恶心反应组”报告“害怕窒息”的频率明显高于对照组(P = 0·008)。这一发现可能对牙科恶心反应的治疗很重要。考虑到我们的研究结果,开发一种新的诊断恶心反应工具需要另一种侧重于恶心严重程度的方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验