Maskato Yamit, Dugdale Alexandra H A, Singer Ellen R, Kelmer Gal, Sutton Gila A
Large Animal Department, Robert H Smith, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences, Koret School of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, POB 12, Rehovot 7610001, Israel.
Leahurst Campus, School of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Chester High Road, Neston, Wirral CH64 7TE, UK.
Animals (Basel). 2020 Nov 29;10(12):2242. doi: 10.3390/ani10122242.
Assessment of the severity of pain in colic cases is subjective. The Equine Acute Abdominal Pain Scale (EAAPS), previously validated using film clips of horses with colic, was tested for feasibility and revalidated in both medical and surgical colic cases in Israel and the UK. Feasibility qualities evaluated were quickness and ease-of-use. Pain in 231 horses, presented for colic, was assessed by 35 participants; 26 in the UK and 9 in Israel. Without prior training, participants assessed the severity of pain using two scales; the EAAPS and a visual analogue scale (VAS). Convergent validity comparing the EAAPS to the VAS was substantial, discriminant validity was good, and predictive validity for surgical treatment was similar to the VAS, but for mortality, the VAS was significantly better. No participants reported the EAAPS to be "very slow" or "very difficult" to use. The mode reported was "quick"/"very quick" and "easy"/"very easy" to use, though in less than 10% of cases, it was reported to be a little less quick or easy. More experienced first-time users found it significantly quicker to use than less experienced participants. In conclusion, the EAAPS is the only equine pain assessment scale that has been tested and found to demonstrate good feasibility for use in the referral hospital setting.
评估绞痛病例中疼痛的严重程度是主观的。马急性腹痛评分量表（EAAPS）此前已通过马患绞痛的视频片段进行了验证，在以色列和英国的内科和外科绞痛病例中对其可行性进行了测试并重新验证。评估的可行性指标包括速度和易用性。35名参与者对231匹因绞痛就诊的马的疼痛情况进行了评估；其中26名在英国，9名在以色列。在没有事先培训的情况下，参与者使用两种量表评估疼痛的严重程度；即EAAPS和视觉模拟量表（VAS）。将EAAPS与VAS进行比较，其收敛效度很高，判别效度良好，手术治疗的预测效度与VAS相似，但在死亡率方面，VAS明显更好。没有参与者报告EAAPS“非常慢”或“非常难”使用。报告的使用方式是“快”/“非常快”和“容易”/“非常容易”，不过在不到10%的病例中，有人报告其速度或易用性稍差一些。经验更丰富的首次使用者发现它比经验较少的参与者使用起来明显更快。总之，EAAPS是唯一经过测试且发现在转诊医院环境中使用具有良好可行性的马疼痛评估量表。
