ライフサイエンスコーパス: pain assessment

1 t swelling and tenderness counts, and global pain assessment).

2 alth Assessment Questionnaire, and patient's pain assessment).

3 ing nurses' use of standardized measures for pain assessment.

4 l neurological examination and comprehensive pain assessment.

5 tematic screening, followed by comprehensive pain assessment.

6 use of rescue anesthesia and patient global pain assessment.

7 spinal cord from a rat model for OA-related pain assessment.

8 accompanying symptoms, medical history, and pain assessments.

9 functional status, analgesics, and physician pain assessments.

10 For all types of surgery and pain assessments, all forms of epidural analgesia provid

11 Ethnic disparities in pain assessment and analgesic administration following s

12 Our objective was to test a method of brief pain assessment and clinical staging based on recognized

13 These findings suggest that comprehensive pain assessment and evidence-based analgesic decision-ma

14 Nurses used a pain assessment and intervention notation algorithm that

15 The use of a detailed, standardized pain assessment and intervention notation algorithm that

16 o ensure implementation of key standards for pain assessment and management and education of health p

17 oretical model of decision making related to pain assessment and management for patients with dementi

18 The existing process guiding pain assessment and management in clinical settings is b

19 se common myths and misconceptions regarding pain assessment and management in critically ill patient

20 Performances on pain assessment and management measures were high.

21 Most of the experts in chronic pain assessment and management organize themselves into

22 of key palliative care processes (other than pain assessment and management) was inconsistent and inf

23 s an evidence-based approach to personalized pain assessment and management.

24 strategies for overcoming barriers to cancer pain assessment and management.

25 sion coefficient for the association between pain assessment and race IAT scores was -0.49 (95% CI, -

26 In the pediatric population, pain assessment and reporting present additional challen

27 s) completed a questionnaire that included a pain assessment and the 12-item General Health Questionn

28 by clinicians with insufficient knowledge of pain assessment and therapy; inappropriate concerns abou

29 x by healthcare professional interaction for pain assessment and treatment decisions.

30 y interactions between race and age for both pain assessment and treatment decisions.

31 human patients as having higher pain in most pain assessment and treatment domains compared to their

32 hich may contribute to racial disparities in pain assessment and treatment.

33 iew describes this framework, an approach to pain assessment, and widely accepted techniques to optim

34 ation, analgesia, or neuromuscular blockers, pain assessments, and drug withdrawal syndromes were gat

35 for this highly quantitative methodology in pain assessment (associated with broiler lameness) inclu

36 Here we describe behavioral pain assessments available for small and large experimen

37 omes were immediate change in mood (Memorial Pain Assessment Card) and 60-second heart and respirator

38 Primary outcomes were immediate (Memorial Pain Assessment Card, 0- to 10-point scale) and sustaine

39 opinions, and attitudes were solicited about pain assessment, current treatment of JIA with residual

40 ng 3 of 4 remaining measures, since baseline pain assessment data were not available.

41 nsity of pain and should perform descriptive pain assessment for patients with a positive screen, inc

42 Current behaviour-based pain assessments for laboratory rodents have significant

43 ancer pain management, little is known about pain assessment in this setting.

44 although we found a significant increase in pain assessments in the last 24 hours of life (p < 0.001

45 d 8 clinical assessment vignettes focused on pain assessment, informed consent, patient reliability,

46 Various observational-behavioural pain assessment instruments have been reported to be bot

47 medication on the guidance of the validated pain assessment instruments.

48 Islet yield, pain assessment, insulin requirement, costs, and transpo

49 Pain assessment is essential for patient care in many se

50 ly assessed and whether routine quantitative pain assessment is feasible in a busy outpatient oncolog

51 uld underpin the development of new clinical pain assessment measures.

52 ren's behaviour appears to influence nurses' pain assessment more than validated measures.

53 n; nurs*; paediatrics; pediatrics; children; pain assessment; non-pharm*; analges*.

54 s including tender and swollen joint counts, pain assessment on a 10-point visual analog scale, and f

55 Pain assessment on the visual analog scale (VAS) during

56 rteen critical care nurses who conducted 114 pain assessments on 31 surgical patients.

57 rteen registered nurses completed up to five pain assessments on each patient over a 4-hr period.

58 average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted mean di

59 , laboratory studies, autonomic testing, and pain assessments over 18 months.

60 l and patient education, instituting regular pain assessment (pain as a vital sign), audit of pain re

61 Data were categorised into four topics: pain assessment; pharmacological practices; non-pharmaco

62 the intervention was successful in changing pain assessment practices, with pain assessment using st

63 of catheter placement, and type and time of pain assessment, provided better postoperative analgesia

64 owledge and attitudes about pain and nursing pain assessment rates have been shown to be improvable,

65 Pain assessment showed no differences across treatment g

66 The present review describes the progress in pain assessment technology that involves the coding of h

67 and physician global assessments and patient pain assessment than to changes in the joint swelling an

68 With the possible exception of pain assessment, there is little evidence that the quali

69 The validated pain assessment tool adopted by our institution is the C

70 itical Care Pain Observation Tool is a valid pain assessment tool in noncomatose, delirious adult ICU

71 ial expression appears to work reliably as a pain assessment tool with cognitively compromised patien

72 pain be routinely assessed using a validated pain assessment tool.

73 Many pain-assessment tools have been developed and restructur

74 practice behaviours (e.g., documentation of pain assessments, use of non-pharmacological and pharmac

75 in changing pain assessment practices, with pain assessment using standardized measures increasing f

76 Quantitative pain assessment was virtually absent before our interven

77 Pain assessments were recorded in 1250 (58%) of 2138, 67

78 k pain time points and evidence for referred pain assessment when studying soft tissue augmentation p

79 on level, and will enable the combination of pain assessments with information about activities of da