ライフサイエンスコーパス: pain score

1 nd visit covariates, including ethnicity and pain score.

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

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

4 The main outcome measurement was overall pain score.

5 The primary outcome was pain score.

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

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

8 t 24 hours after procedure and retrospective pain score.

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

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

11 tly decrease opioid requirements and improve pain scores.

12 conversion, complications and postoperative pain scores.

13 ry efficacy endpoint was change in abdominal pain scores.

14 its effect on behavioural and physiological pain scores.

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

16 ance score, and a strong trend toward higher pain scores.

17 bination of PYD and exercise did not improve pain scores.

18 lip area to hand area, which correlated with pain scores.

19 end of the study correlated with the 3-week pain scores.

20 cal outcomes compared with men who had lower pain scores.

21 ignificantly better overall WOMAC scores and pain scores.

22 found to significantly reduce the patient's pain scores.

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

24 th, social functioning, vitality, and bodily pain scores.

25 nkephalin were correlated with the decreased pain scores.

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

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

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

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

30 The primary outcome was improvement in the pain score (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]) at 14 weeks

31 re time in the standard group (slope 0.09 in pain score/15 min, p<0.0001), and the attention group (s

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

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

34 orted a highly significant decrease in WOMAC pain score (-27.5% relative to baseline, P = 0.0001).

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

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

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

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

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

40 Pain scores (affective component of the McGill Pain Ques

41 the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons pain scores after 1, 3, and 6 months compared with basel

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

43 -6] for pain scores in the PACU; 4 [3-7] for pain scores after discharge; 6.7 [3.3-10] for opioid use

44 gnificantly more effective in decreasing VAS pain scores after each treatment than sham-PENS, TENS, a

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

46 Pain scores after the first intervention were significan

47 had immediate improvement in disability and pain scores after the intervention.

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

49 Pain scores among children in the standard care group in

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

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

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

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

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

55 On the basis of changes in pain score and pain medication use, pain was reported wi

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

57 Measurements of chest pain score and regional wall motion during inflation (qu

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

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

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

61 Pain scores and adverse effects were not significantly d

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

63 Pain scores and daily opioid dose were similar among the

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

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

66 0.000) while there was no difference in the pain scores and medications, resumption of diet, length

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

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

69 Pain scores and OHQoL-UK showed no significant differenc

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

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

72 ngs at laser Doppler imaging correlated with pain scores and synovitis detected at ultrasonography, w

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

74 e were calculated from 10 cm linear analogue pain scores and were used as the primary outcome measure

75 ant association between higher posttreatment pain scores and worse QOL (P <.001).

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

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

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

79 an pain scores, weighted mean differences in pain score, and weighted incidences of complications wer

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

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

82 ulate cortex (ACC) and cuneus, correlated to pain scores, and in the ACC and left pulvinar, correlate

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

84 -12, Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E), pain scores, and return to work (RTW) were collected.

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

86 the placebo group, the modest improvement in pain scores appeared unrelated to the subject's impressi

87 The change in the pain score at 1 month was significantly higher (P < .004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

96 ifferences between CTG and FGG groups in VAS pain scores at 3 days did not reach statistical signific

97 The decrease in VAS pain scores at 4 hours was 2.0 cm in the INO group and 1

98 nts in all 4 groups showed reduction in mean pain scores at 6 and 14 weeks compared with baseline val

99 Changes in mean pain scores at 6 and 14 weeks, using a pain scale rangin

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

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

102 hort Form 36 (SF-36) and self-reported joint pain scores at baseline and after 1 year.

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

104 observation or operation, in visual analogue pain scores at rest, 3.7 mm versus 5.2 mm (mean differen

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

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

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

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

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

110 Efficacy was measured via self-reported pain score (Brief Pain Inventory), analgesic use, the pr

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

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

113 , there was no difference in the activity or pain scores, but physical health and general scores on t

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

115 stants (HAs) to measure and document patient pain scores by using a visual analog scale.

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

117 Pain score collection identified a high prevalence of pa

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

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

120 At 14 weeks, the VAS pain score decreased 36% in the pramipexole arm and 9% i

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

122 The mean pain score decreased from 7.8 +/- 1.2 to 1.6 +/- 1.3 (P

123 The mean VAS pain score decreased significantly (P < .001), from 76 +

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

125 After reinstitution of treatment, WOMAC pain scores decreased significantly in both flaring and

126 ariable was the comparison of end point mean pain scores, derived from daily diary ratings of pain in

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

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

129 there were no differences in the severity of pain (score difference -0.2, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.8) or disa

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

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

132 ctional parameters (P = 0.008 for VAS spinal pain score during the day and for VAS spinal pain score

133 The chest pain score during the first inflation was also significa

134 pain score during the day and for VAS spinal pain score during the night, P = 0.008 for the BASFI, an

135 Maximum pain scores during insufflation were lower with alfentan

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

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

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

139 Charts and self-reported pain score evaluations were retrospectively reviewed in

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

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

142 Most patients showed low VAS pain scores for both probes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

151 apy had failed and who reported severe pain (pain score > or = 4 [scale of 0-10]) over a 24-hour peri

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

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

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

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

156 d unrelieved pain (visual analog scale [VAS] pain scores >/= 5 on a 0 to 10 scale).

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

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

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

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

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

162 Before RF ablation, mean worst pain score in a 24-hour period in 12 patients was 8.0 (r

163 ntin is effective in reducing the subjective pain score in patients with postherpetic neuralgia.

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

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

166 ce the mean severity of joint pain, although pain scores in both treatment groups were low at baselin

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

168 rimarily attributable to a greater change in pain scores in individuals receiving placebo (r = 0.460,

169 17-HDHA was associated with lower pain scores in OA patients (beta -0.41; 95% CI-0.69, -0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

177 Pain scores in those receiving preemptive analgesia were

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

179 After the intervention, HA documentation of pain scores increased from 1% to 75.6% (P < .0001).

180 s the first postoperative analgesic when the pain score indicated significant pain.

181 quantitative 2D echocardiography), and chest pain score indicated that the infusion of NTG 24 hours b

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

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

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

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

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

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

188 I, -5.0 to -0.8]; P = 0.01) but not in WOMAC pain score (mean difference, -0.5 [CI, -1.2 to 0.2]; P =

189 e, -2.5 [CI, -4.7 to -0.4]; P = 0.01), WOMAC pain score (mean difference, -0.87 [CI, -1.58 to -0.16];

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

197 oup A1, 13 of 15 patients had improvement in pain score of greater than 1 standard deviation at 1 mon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

205 In primary measures of efficacy (OA pain score on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS] and tot

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

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

208 Pain scores on the first postoperative day were lower af

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

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

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

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

213 ee had significantly greater improvements in pain scores over 6 weeks with diclofenac + misoprostol t

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

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

216 ief Pain Inventory average interference from pain score (P = 0.004), number of tender points (P = 0.0

217 0.63), but not significantly more on the FIQ pain score (P = 0.130).

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

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

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

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

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

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

224 Pain scores, performance status scores, incidence of jaw

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

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

227 easures included HA documentation of patient pain scores, quantitative and qualitative mention of pai

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

229 severe osteoarthritis according to baseline pain scores, radiographs, or number of involved joints.

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

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

232 group reported a 16% decrease in mean WOMAC pain score relative to baseline (P = 0.001).

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

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

235 1) in men with low (< 17) and high (>or= 17) pain scores, respectively.

236 24 hours after the procedure to assess their pain score, retrospective pain score and willingness to

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

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

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

240 e 0-80, with 0 indicating no impact) and FIQ pain score (score range 0-10).

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

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

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

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

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

246 ted-measures analysis of variance for hourly pain scores showed a 1-cm/h greater reduction in the INO

247 The VAS pain scores showed favorable anesthetic efficacy of the

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

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

250 yte sedimentation rate (ESR), grip strength, pain scores, tender joint counts, and anxiety and depres

251 sistently had lower Role-Physical and Bodily Pain scores than the norm, suggesting impact on daily ro

252 e the placebo-treated patients reported high pain scores, the difference between treatments was large

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

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

255 Pain scores using visual analog scale or faces pain rati

256 Median pain score (visual analog scale [VAS], 0-10) achieved fo

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

258 The median overall VAS pain score was 11 mm in the anesthetic group and 27 mm i

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

260 The mean pain score was 2.83 of 10.

261 to recall the insertion procedure, the mean pain score was 3.2 for transrectal and 5.9 for transvagi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

271 ervous system opioid receptors or changes in pain scores was not observed.

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

273 Weighted mean pain scores, weighted mean differences in pain score, an

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

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

276 re and amitriptyline comparisons, changes in pain score were not significantly different between the

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

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

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

280 Postoperative MEDD and pain scores were also similar.

281 Postoperative pain scores were comparable between the 2 groups.

282 dings, plasma levels of creatine kinase, and pain scores were correlated.

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

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

285 For the FGG group, 3-week VAS pain scores were less than the 3-day ones (P <0.01).

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

287 Pain scores were lower and 24-hour narcotic use was less

288 Sequential postprocedural pain scores were obtained.

289 Patients whose pain scores were reduced to <20 mm were discontinued.

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

291 Nonsignificant improvements in joint pain scores were seen with PHT use (odds ratio [OR] 4.10

292 Mean numeric pain scores were significantly decreased (baseline score

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

294 Preinhalation VAS pain scores were similar in the INO and placebo groups (

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

296 d measures (Health Assessment Questionnaire, pain scores) were of limited use.

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

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 Improved pain scores with TSMB were statistically equivalent (P >