ライフサイエンスコーパス: pain score

1 The primary outcome was pain score.

2 l change of tibial cartilage volume or WOMAC pain score.

3 A) and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form worst pain score.

4 t 24 hours after procedure and retrospective pain score.

5 M-A score but not on Visual Analog Scale for Pain score.

6 nd visit covariates, including ethnicity and pain score.

7 ent and worsening of pain varied by baseline pain score.

8 rvival, progression-free survival (PFS), and pain score.

9 The main outcome measurement was overall pain score.

10 that are combined into a single, univariate pain score.

11 elated behavioral features and the resulting pain score.

12 The primary outcome was change in NRS pain score.

13 ry efficacy endpoint was change in abdominal pain scores.

14 r operative times, more sedation, and higher pain scores.

15 erative opioid use, nausea and vomiting, and pain scores.

16 tly decrease opioid requirements and improve pain scores.

17 ing requests for refills or patient-reported pain scores.

18 conversion, complications and postoperative pain scores.

19 its effect on behavioural and physiological pain scores.

20 h no pain or those in the lowest tertiles of pain scores.

21 n were associated with higher post-procedure pain scores.

22 and EuroQol 5 dimensions forms), and Izbicki pain scores.

23 etriosis and positively correlate with their pain scores.

24 e-to-low trajectories based on postoperative pain scores.

25 , Cry, and Consolability Scale were used for pain scoring.

26 cMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score (0 [no pain] to 500 [worst pain]) from baseli

27 line had slightly greater worsening of WOMAC pain scores (0.47 on a 20-point scale) and physical func

28 ministration resulted in significantly lower pain scores (0.60 +/- 0.1 vs 1.2 +/- 0.2, p = 0.006) and

29 The primary outcome measure was average pain score 1 month after treatment.

30 eported by 88.1% of patients, including mild pain (scores 2-4) in 46.4%, moderate pain (scores 5-7) i

31 did those given placebo (mean reductions in pain scores -2.29 [SD 1.75] vs -1.60 [1.66]; difference

32 higher for gentamicin (mean visual analogue pain score 36 of 100 in the gentamicin group vs 21 of 10

33 Mean+/-SEM pain scores 4 hours after injection were 1.6 +/- 0.4 for

34 ine had greater median (interquartile range) pain scores 48 hours (5.5 [4.0-7.0] vs 5.0 [3.0-6.0]; P

35 ng mild pain (scores 2-4) in 46.4%, moderate pain (scores 5-7) in 34.5%, and severe pain (scores 8-10

36 erate pain (scores 5-7) in 34.5%, and severe pain (scores 8-10) in 7.1% of patients.

37 re vulvovaginal atrophy, dyspareunia (median pain score, 8 of 10; interquartile range [IQR], 7 to 9),

38 61 [1.03, 6.62]) were associated with higher pain scores across time.

39 conversion rates, morbidity rates, activity pain scores, activity scores, patient satisfaction, and

40 ure were identified as predictors for higher pain score after pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopies.

41 We evaluated patient-reported pain scores after colorectal operations in 52 hospitals

42 -6] for pain scores in the PACU; 4 [3-7] for pain scores after discharge; 6.7 [3.3-10] for opioid use

43 Predictors for high pain scores after endoscopies in children are not known.

44 sk factors for prolonged recovery and higher pain scores after gastrointestinal endoscopy in children

45 Pain scores after RT were assessed at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12,

46 .025, P < 0.001) were associated with higher pain scores after the procedure.

47 and interference, as well as DASH and WOMAC pain scores, also decreased significantly at 12 months i

48 Pain scores among children in the standard care group in

49 as a clinically meaningful reduction in the pain score and a decreased or stable use of rescue analg

50 t of >/=30% improvement from baseline in the pain score and a rating of "very much improved" or "much

51 When stratified by pain score and adjusted for ethnicity, black patients wi

52 There was no significant difference in the pain score and analgesia requirement one hour after the

53 Patients reported their worst pain score and analgesic intake at baseline and days 10

54 ry outcome was pain, measured on the Izbicki pain score and integrated over 18 months (range, 0-100 [

55 here were also no differences in the overall pain score and pain score at rest.

56 imary efficacy outcomes were the weekly mean pain score and the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FI

57 re to assess their pain score, retrospective pain score and willingness to have a repeat procedure.

58 Nurses assigning pain scores and administrating opioids for pain and staf

59 Pain scores and adverse effects were not significantly d

60 tive chronic pain and not only the classical pain scores and analgesic consumption to bring us the an

61 Pain scores and daily opioid dose were similar among the

62 inflammatory "IL-1beta signature" had higher pain scores and decreased function and were at higher ri

63 t pain, recalling even higher ICU procedural pain scores and greater traumatic stress when compared w

64 c disorder tend to have higher postoperative pain scores and more postoperative complications.

65 Secondary outcomes were pain scores and morphine-related adverse effects.

66 The pretreatment pain scores and pain response to RT were compared with F

67 k (BRSB) has been shown to improve immediate pain scores and reduce use of postoperative analgesia in

68 dpoint was the sensation of pain measured by pain scores and the need of analgesics after 1 year of s

69 Higher actual postoperative pain scores and unacceptable pain, even on the first pos

70 ence populations (P < .01; except for ocular pain score) and similar to patients in other retinal vei

71 tant hernias, SF-36 questionnaire, Von Korff pain score, and cost-effectiveness between both study gr

72 ylinder, contrast sensitivity, glare acuity, pain score, and higher-order aberrations.

73 ed with highest and lowest case-mix-adjusted pain scores, and compared against Hospital Consumer Asse

74 f scar to initial defect size, healing time, pain scores, and complication rates.

75 evel of safety, improved function, decreased pain scores, and is cost-effective.

76 -12, Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E), pain scores, and return to work (RTW) were collected.

77 ow-up visits; preoperative and postoperative pain scores; and the technician word count.

78 sulted in significantly greater reduction in pain scores as early as cycle 3 (P = .0007 v Rd); the ma

79 mary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating sc

80 er Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score at 12 weeks.

81 Least squares mean average 24-h pain score at 16 weeks in the full analysis population w

82 The primary endpoint was average 24-h pain score at 16 weeks in the full analysis population.

83 equirement one hour after the procedure, the pain score at 24 hours after procedure and retrospective

84 re was a significant difference in change of pain score at 3 months from the preoperative baseline be

85 ary analysis was baseline-adjusted change in pain score at 6 months, assessed by an 11-point numeric

86 no differences in the overall pain score and pain score at rest.

87 for bone metastases were required to have a pain score at the site(s) of treatment of at least 2 (ra

88 Secondary endpoints included postoperative pain scores at 12 and 48 hours, functional recovery, pai

89 rst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation.

90 oint was the difference in mean BPI-SF worst pain scores at 6 weeks, which was lower for TA compared

91 Preliminary data analysis showed reduced pain scores at all times, and with all degrees of moveme

92 The association between the pain scores at each time and type of treatment (TAP vs s

93 analgesics they gave their child as well as pain scores at the time of administration.

94 urologic examinations, glucose control logs, pain scores, autonomic symptoms and other microvascular

95 Children with a higher pain score before the procedure also had a longer recove

96 Older age and higher pain score before the procedure were identified as predi

97 In a multivariate analysis higher pain scores before the procedure (OR 12.42, 95% CI 3.67-

98 associated with BASDAI question 2 (ie, back pain score) (beta = 0.45, P = .01), mean stiffness score

99 The observed mean difference in the average pain score between duloxetine and placebo was 0.73 (95%

100 toperative complications, and post-operative pain scores between discharge and 2-week postoperative v

101 were found in the mean reduction in average pain scores between the treatment and control groups for

102 nsus Endpoint (ICE) and Brief Pain Inventory pain score (BPI-PS), is associated with patient percepti

103 ne performance status (0 or 1 vs 2) and mean pain score (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF] que

104 tes resulted in no significant difference in pain scores but was associated with more rescue medicati

105 o report at least a 30% improvement in their pain score by 12 months (51.7% vs 27.1%; relative risk,

106 We found a significant reduction of pain scores by central NINMs (effect size [ES] = - 0.75,

107 The modified Von Korff pain score changed by 6.4% (3.14-9.66) and 13.4% (10.77-

108 The pain scores, clinical score, time to return to normal ac

109 line in joint space width as well as improve pain scores compared with placebo in a large multicenter

110 times, blood loss, length of hospital stay, pain score, convalescence, quality of life, and costs.

111 alized linear mixed-model analysis, the mean pain score decreased at each pain assessment compared to

112 At 2 hours, the mean NRS pain score decreased by 4.3 (95% CI, 3.6 to 4.9) in the

113 Worst joint pain scores decreased by 1.6 points (29%) at 12 months a

114 From baseline to 16 weeks, mean WOMAC Pain scores decreased from 7.1 to 3.6 in the tanezumab,

115 utcomes included total inpatient opioid use, pain scores determined using a 100 mm visual analog scal

116 Pain scores did not differ between groups at 21 days and

117 test was used to determine whether change in pain score differed between patients who guessed their t

118 ry outcome is pain assessed with the Izbicki pain score during a follow-up of 18 months.

119 ference of at least 15 points on the Izbicki pain score during follow-up.

120 Maximum pain scores during insufflation were lower with alfentan

121 ea under the curve and adjusted for baseline pain score) during the 4 hours after a single dose of do

122 lacebo 13%; P = .024), and reduced abdominal pain scores (ebastine 39 +/- 23 vs placebo 62 +/- 22; P

123 tistically significant difference in overall pain scores (effect estimate 0.004, standard error 0.028

124 d's Condition Score, duration of attacks, RP pain score, endothelial dysfunction assessed by a periph

125 ere SF-36 score, Visual Analogue Score (VAS) pain score, EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L) score, morbidity, m

126 rom baseline of the weekly average abdominal pain score for 6 or more of 12 weeks of treatment (P = .

127 Median SUV(max) and initial pain scores for all locations were 7.2 (range, 1.5-22.5)

128 This study show a significant improvement in pain scores for obstetric patients receiving a transvers

129 operative numerical rating scale (NRS, 0-10) pain scores for residual limb pain and PLP at 1 year.

130 week 4, defined by a mean reduction in daily pain score from baseline of >/= 30%, and of at least 2 p

131 The largest difference in decline in the NRS pain score from baseline to 2 hours was between the oxyc

132 Average daily pain scores from diaries were also similar (3.05 for the

133 the area under the curve (AUC) of cumulative pain scores from end of surgery to 6 h postsurgery.

134 Pain score, grip strength, and dexterity were measured b

135 d for breast cancer reporting post-treatment pain (score >/= 3 on pain intensity or pain burden asses

136 At least some degree of ocular pain (score >1) was reported by 88.1% of patients, inclu

137 lated pain (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] worst pain score > or = 6), or both.

138 patients had more days with any report of a pain score >/= 4 (median, 50% [IQR, 27%-67%] of days vs

139 ts had severe pre-treatment pain, defined as pain score >/=7 (0 = "no pain" and 10 = "worst pain").

140 the back and legs (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] pain score >=60 mm; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] scor

141 e scheduled to receive radiotherapy, and had pain scores >/= 4 of 10 (on 0-to-10 numeric rating scale

142 st-traumatic-stress-disorder reported higher pain scores, had longer operative times, and were more l

143 th faster return of gut function and reduced pain scores; however, no difference was observed in leng

144 stratified hospitals by quartiles of average pain scores, identified hospital characteristics, pain m

145 AqCHX, eyes receiving PI had a greater mean pain score immediately after injection (1.44 vs. 0.44, P

146 mean+/-standard error of the mean (SEM) VAS pain scores immediately after intravitreal injection wer

147 Mean VAS pain scores immediately after IVT and 4 hours after IVT

148 In the control group, median pain score improved from 1.0 (IQR 0.0-2.0) at baseline t

149 jury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score (improvement) with verum acupuncture compared

150 The median pain score in the compression group using a visual analo

151 The mean visual analog scale pain score in the osteoarthritis self-management group w

152 e mean Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales-2 pain score in the osteoarthritis self-management group w

153 the IV-PCA group was no worse than the mean pain score in the TEA group by a margin of <1 point on a

154 e', was significantly associated with higher pain scores in five of six independent patient cohorts a

155 17-HDHA was associated with lower pain scores in OA patients (beta -0.41; 95% CI-0.69, -0.

156 Primary endpoints were pain scores in rest and when moving at 24 hours postoper

157 ent symptoms were present together with high pain scores in the hypothetical scenarios.

158 TSMB improved surgeon postprocedure pain scores in the neck, lower back, shoulders, upper ba

159 Pain scores in the opiate group (n = 150) vs the NSAID g

160 the control group (median [IQR], 4 [3-6] for pain scores in the PACU; 4 [3-7] for pain scores after d

161 Although median (interquartile range) pain scores in the postanesthesia care unit were improve

162 After surgery, pain scores in the recovery room (3.2 vs 4.7, P = .003),

163 pentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was a

164 es were less common in hospitals with lowest pain scores, including complications (20.3% vs 26.4%; P

165 e BPI-SF pain severity scale of 0-10, median pain scores (indicating worst pain in the past 24 h) wer

166 ve time was not associated with an increased pain score, irrespective of anesthesia type, when contro

167 nts associate with high postmyelitis chronic pain scores, irrespective of number of myelitis relapses

168 o differences in total inpatient opioid use, pain scores, length of stay, and patient-reported qualit

169 c-stress-disorder was correlated with higher pain scores, longer operative times, and with having rec

170 te analysis, older age, higher pre-procedure pain scores, longer procedure durations, higher number o

171 me III criteria, and pain-free by an Izbicki Pain Score <=10 and visual analogue scale <=4.

172 in status was classified as palliated (worst pain scores < 5 maintained for 2 consecutive cycles) or

173 ventory-Short Form [BPI-SF] question 3 worst pain, score </=3 vs >/=4).

174 cial expression changes, as a novel means of pain scoring, may overcome some of these limitations.

175 n patients had a statistically lower numeric pain score (mean, 6.5; 95% CI, 3.6-9.4) than non-Native

176 e constructed by dichotomizing clinical knee pain scores (median split) and knee OA grade scores (gra

177 surgical intensity (intrinsic cardiac risk, pain score, median operative time, and work relative val

178 We compared patient pain scores, ocular surface characteristics, and antimic

179 orted moderate to high levels of mammography pain (score of >/= 5 on a 0 to 10 scale).

180 tage breast cancer and who had average joint pain score of >/= 4 out of 10 that developed or worsened

181 nimum clinically important difference in NRS pain score of 1.3.

182 tive categorical response was a reduction in pain score of 2 or more points coupled with a score abov

183 and neck radiotherapy, had an oral mucositis pain score of 4 points or greater (scale, 0-10), and wer

184 djusted for stratification factors (baseline pain score of 4 to 6 v 7 to 10 and prior taxane use).

185 one type of severe pain, and an average 24-h pain score of at least 6 (assessed on an 11-point rating

186 ), and 12.1 (range, 7-22.5) for pretreatment pain scores of 2, 4, 6, and 8, respectively.

187 e three most painful procedures, with median pain scores of 5 (3-7), 4.5 (2-7), and 4 (2-6), respecti

188 Twenty percent of patients had pain scores of 5 to 10 of 10 with the first dose of pacl

189 actors associated with OPs for patients with pain scores of 7 to 10.

190 We adjusted for pain scores of the nonharvested extremity, age, whether

191 With time, the pain scores of the TAP group changed a little, whereas a

192 The primary outcome was pain (scored on the African Palliative Care Association'

193 The mean pain score on a 0-to-10 visual analog scale was signific

194 , one of these studies reported that maximum pain score on postoperative days 1 and 2 was significant

195 milar to MLC, except for a reduction in peak pain score on the first postoperative day.

196 Noninferiority would be declared if the mean pain score on the numeric rating scale (NRS) for postope

197 was assessed in 2 ways: the movement-evoked pain score on the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-MEP) and t

198 sion stockings also had significantly better pain scores on days 1-3, day 5, and day 7.

199 Pain scores on the first postoperative day were lower af

200 Mean pain scores on the Wong-Baker scale (0-10) were: 6.0 (SD

201 There was no difference in postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, sedation score, ICU or

202 ight iliac fossa or suprapubic site-specific pain scores, opioid use, recovery parameters, or complic

203 pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, Izbicki pain scores, or medical costs.

204 asured tibial cartilage volume or WOMAC knee pain score over 2 years.

205 imary outcome measure for this study was the pain score over the first 10 postoperative days.

206 g statistically significantly higher average pain scores over the four follow-up time points than tho

207 me regarding quality of life (P < 0.001) and pain score (P < 0.001).

208 gher EQ5D score (P = 0.016), and a lower VAS pain score (P = 0.011).

209 tatistically significant improvements in the pain score (P</=0.025), the FIQ score (P</=0.023), and t

210 SUV(max) was correlated with pretreatment pain scores (P < .0001).

211 ry (P = .002), reported higher postoperative pain scores (P = .034), required more reoperations (P =

212 sity that does not evoke changes in clinical pain scores (p = 0.55).

213 dian (interquartile range) in ICU procedural pain scores (pain intensity: 5 [4-7] vs 3 [2.5-5], p < 0

214 and surrogate objective endpoints, that is, pain score, pain-free walking distance, ankle-brachial i

215 R1 reduced immediate postoperative surrogate pain score panels.

216 ther variables included functional recovery, pain scores, peak flow, vasopressor and fluid requiremen

217 Pain scores, performance status scores, incidence of jaw

218 utcomes, including 24-hour and weekly recall pain score, PGIC score, SF-36 PCS and mental component s

219 al and physiological measures, observational pain scores (PIPP), and spinal nociceptive reflex withdr

220 recent injuries and in upper and lower joint pain scores post-programme.

221 hypoechoic echotexture correlated with heel pain score (r > .475, P < .001).

222 nificant proportion of children did not have pain scores recorded in the first 24-h postoperatively.

223 ion of axial reflux on duplex, visual analog pain scores, recovery time, complication rates, Venous C

224 iencing pain, with the Visual Analogue Scale pain score reducing by 64% (P < 0.001) and 54% (P < 0.00

225 proportion of patients with 1-point average pain score reduction compared to baseline using the Pain

226 rn, regurgitation, respiratory symptoms, and pain scores remained constant over time.

227 nearly 50% (45.6 vs. 21.3; P<0.01), whereas pain scores remained similar (3.97 vs. 3.87; P=ns).

228 After 6 months, pain scores reported to the clinic were reduced by 1.97

229 24 hours after the procedure to assess their pain score, retrospective pain score and willingness to

230 with complications, serious adverse events, pain scores, return emergency department visits, or hosp

231 The secondary endpoints included the wound pain score, satisfaction with wound care, and cost of wo

232 The median visual analog scale (VAS) pain score (scale, 0-10) decreased from 8 before treatme

233 lternative assessments of clinical and diary pain scores, scores on quality-of-life tests (the Europe

234 line knee pain (frequent pain yes/no), WOMAC pain score, self-reported physical function, and radiogr

235 Pain, pain scores, sensory changes, and complications over sho

236 oportion of patients with an OP increased as pain score severity increased: 10% of those with no pain

237 assigned to mutually exclusive categories by pain score severity: 0, 1 to 3 (mild), 4 to 6 (moderate)

238 The VAS pain scores showed favorable anesthetic efficacy of the

239 hly significant (p<0.01) opposing effects on pain scores (std.

240 hly significant (p<0.01) opposing effects on pain scores (std. beta=-0.46 and 0.48, respectively).

241 es Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score, pain score, stiffness score, and function score, modestl

242 the early surgery group had a lower Izbicki pain score than patients in the group randomized to rece

243 Limited patching was associated with lower pain scores than placebo, but the difference was not sta

244 Although the patching group reported lower pain scores than the control group, this was not statist

245 nepafenac group reported significantly lower pain scores than those in the control group at 6 hours (

246 ociated with significantly decreased numeric pain score up to 48 hours compared with colchicine alone

247 However, LESS appendectomy resulted in worst pain scores upon exertion and required a higher dosage o

248 vement in worst abdominal pain and composite pain score using the Pain Frequency-Severity-Duration (P

249 Pain scores using visual analog scale or faces pain rati

250 By 12 weeks, the average joint pain score was 0.82 points lower for patients who receiv

251 The primary endpoint, mean NRS pain score was 1.7 in the IV-PCA group and 1.6 in the TE

252 By 7 days, the average pain score was 2.0 in each group (P=0.84).

253 The mean pain score was 2.83 of 10.

254 The mean average NRS pain score was 4.3 (SD 2.3) in the gabapentin group and

255 The mean total WOMAC pain score was 6.3 versus 3.9, respectively, in those wi

256 The mean worst NRS pain score was 7.1 (standard deviation [SD] 2.6) in the

257 The baseline mean NRS pain score was 8.7 (SD, 1.3).

258 Improvement in pain score was better with UCS than AMT (P value: .012,

259 A 2-point change in pain score was defined as a clinically significant chang

260 The pain score was lower with navigated laser as compared to

261 Reduction >50% in mean pain score was noted in 58 of 74 (78%) patients in the d

262 Only maximum pain score was significantly associated with opioid use.

263 d early follow-up, mean numeric rating scale pain score was significantly improved at 6 weeks from 6.

264 At follow-up, reduction in pain scores was accompanied by improvement in all dimens

265 ed survival whereas the association with the pain scores was inverse.

266 urve of the postoperative time 0- to 48-hour pain scores was lower in the TEA group (78.6 vs 105.2 pa

267 001), whereas no difference in postoperative pain scores was noted.

268 term follow-up including Quality of Life and pain scores was performed.

269 No significant differences in terms of the Pain Score were detected between both groups [PD: 7 (0-1

270 Pooled MD and 95% confidence interval for pain score were higher for PCA at rest 24 hours postoper

271 Condition Score, duration of attacks, and RP pain score were not significantly different between grou

272 significant within-group reductions in mean pain score were observed with indomethacin and prednisol

273 Changes in residual limb pain scores were 2.9 versus 0.9 (difference 1.9, aCI -0.

274 Mean (average) pain scores were 6.9 points (SD, 1.5) for placebo and 7.

275 SUV(max) and pretreatment pain scores were also significantly associated with pain

276 Postoperative MEDD and pain scores were also similar.

277 procedure characteristics, and postoperative pain scores were collected prospectively.

278 EQ5D-3L, Visual Analog Scale, and Functional Pain scores were comparable between groups over time.

279 Postoperative pain scores were comparable between the 2 groups.

280 ge prescribing of opioids, and postoperative pain scores were examined.

281 Pain scores were greater on day 0, afternoon of day 1 an

282 Median postoperative pain scores were higher in monofocal IOL with PRK eyes.

283 Hospitals with the lowest pain scores were larger (503 vs 452 beds; P < 0.001), hi

284 Pain scores were lower among patients in the 12F chest t

285 Average daily pain scores were lower in the ERAS group (median 1.3 vs

286 Pain scores were lower in the TEA group on PODs 0 and 1,

287 Because pain scores were not normally distributed, statistical a

288 Sequential postprocedural pain scores were obtained.

289 vasopressor requirements, and postoperative pain scores were secondary outcome measures.

290 Mean numeric pain scores were significantly decreased (baseline score

291 Maximum postoperative day one pain scores were significantly less for SILC (4.9 vs. 5.

292 Pain scores were unchanged from 6 to 12 months but were

293 Postoperative pain scores were: none (908 (9%) patients), mild (3863 (

294 n endoscopy-first approach resulted in lower pain scores when integrated over 18 months.

295 and 1.6+/-2.5 (P=.51), while the respective pain scores with activity were 4.3+/-2.9, 3.8+/-3.1, and

296 Changes in NRS pain scores with MIV-711 were not statistically signific

297 The relationship of pain scores with pathologic variables was also investiga

298 Patients with higher P-APS pain scores with the first dose of paclitaxel appeared t

299 Improved pain scores with TSMB were statistically equivalent (P >

300 Mean pain scores within initial 48 postoperative hours were 4