Department of Surgical Specialties and Anesthesiology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Clinical Studies, New Bolton Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2021 Aug 5;16(8):e0255618. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255618. eCollection 2021.
Proper pain therapy requires adequate pain assessment. This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the Unesp-Botucatu horse acute pain scale (UHAPS), the Orthopedic Composite Pain Scale (CPS) and unidimensional scales in horses admitted for orthopedic and soft tissue surgery. Forty-two horses were assessed and videotaped before surgery, up to 4 hours postoperatively, up to 3 hours after analgesic treatment, and 24 hours postoperatively (168 video clips). After six evaluators viewing each edited video clip twice in random order at a 20-day interval, they chose whether analgesia would be indicated and applied the Simple Descriptive, Numeric and Visual Analog scales, CPS, and UHAPS. For all evaluators, intra-observer reliability of UHAPS and CPS ranged from 0.70 to 0.97. Reproducibility was variable among the evaluators and ranged from poor to very good for all scales. Principal component analysis showed a weak association among 50% and 62% of the UHAPS and CPS items, respectively. Criterion validity based on Spearman correlation among all scales was above 0.67. Internal consistency was minimally acceptable (0.51-0.64). Item-total correlation was acceptable (0.3-0.7) for 50% and 38% of UHAPS and CPS items, respectively. UHAPS and CPS were specific (90% and 79% respectively), but both were not sensitive (43 and 38%, respectively). Construct validity (responsiveness) was confirmed for all scales because pain scores increased after surgery. The cut-off point for rescue analgesia was ≥ 5 and ≥ 7 for the UHAPS and CPS, respectively. All scales presented adequate repeatability, criterion validity, and partial responsiveness. Both composite scales showed poor association among items, minimally acceptable internal consistency, and weak sensitivity, indicating that they are suboptimal instruments for assessing postoperative pain. Both composite scales require further refinement with the exclusion of redundant or needless items and reduction of their maximum score applied to each item or should be replaced by other tools.
恰当的疼痛治疗需要充分的疼痛评估。本研究评估了 Unesp-Botucatu 马急性疼痛量表(UHAPS)、骨科综合疼痛量表(CPS)和一维量表在接受骨科和软组织手术的马中的可靠性和有效性。42 匹马在手术前、术后 4 小时内、镇痛治疗后 3 小时内和术后 24 小时内(168 个视频剪辑)进行了评估和录像。在 20 天的间隔内,六位评估者两次随机观看每个编辑后的视频剪辑,然后选择是否需要镇痛,并应用简单描述、数字和视觉模拟量表、CPS 和 UHAPS。对于所有评估者,UHAPS 和 CPS 的观察者内可靠性范围为 0.70 至 0.97。评估者之间的再现性各不相同,所有量表的范围从差到极好。主成分分析显示,UHAPS 和 CPS 的项目分别有 50%和 62%之间存在弱关联。所有量表之间基于 Spearman 相关性的标准效度均高于 0.67。内部一致性最低可接受(0.51-0.64)。UHAPS 和 CPS 的项目分别有 50%和 38%的项目总分相关性可接受(0.3-0.7)。UHAPS 和 CPS 的特异性分别为 90%和 79%(分别),但敏感性均不高(分别为 43%和 38%)。所有量表的结构效度(反应性)均得到确认,因为手术后疼痛评分增加。UHAPS 和 CPS 的救援镇痛截断值分别为≥5 和≥7。所有量表均具有可重复使用性、标准有效性和部分反应性。两种综合量表的项目之间关联性差、内部一致性最低可接受、敏感性低,表明它们不是评估术后疼痛的最佳工具。两种综合量表都需要进一步改进,删除冗余或不必要的项目,并降低应用于每个项目的最大分数,或者用其他工具代替。