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 e using approaches common for other types of pain assessment.

4 hese findings suggest ML's potential in goat pain assessment.

5 l neurological examination and comprehensive pain assessment.

6 tematic screening, followed by comprehensive pain assessment.

7 use of rescue anesthesia and patient global pain assessment.

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

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

10 r spine MRI studies are widely used for back pain assessment.

11 ts are a notoriously challenging species for pain assessment.

12 PS), which is the 'golden standard' in sheep pain assessment.

13 h or loss to follow-up for toxic effects and pain assessments.

14 accompanying symptoms, medical history, and pain assessments.

15 functional status, analgesics, and physician pain assessments.

16 ive topics: 1) using a quantitative tool for pain assessment; 2) administering narcotics for pain rel

17 Of the 179 LKDs who completed the final pain assessment, 74 (41%) met criteria for chronic posts

18 Standardized pain assessment (A) was the most common (91%), followed

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

20 Ethnic disparities in pain assessment and analgesic administration following s

21 Patient pain assessment and analgesic consumption were documente

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

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

24 (fNIRS) and virtual reality (VR) to improve pain assessment and explore non-pharmacological pain rel

25 Nurses used a pain assessment and intervention notation algorithm that

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

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

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

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

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

31 Performances on pain assessment and management measures were high.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

43 racial and ethnic disparities in peripartum pain assessment and treatment is a national priority.

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

45 ndings underscore the potential of fNIRS for pain assessment and VR as a useful non-pharmacological i

46 pplicability of real-time and video-recorded pain assessment, and their agreement, in young, adult bu

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

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

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

50 Visual analogue scales (VAS) were used for pain assessment at rest, for activities of daily living,

51 In the unadjusted analysis, younger age, no pain assessment at triage, opioids, longer duration of s

52 Our statistical software platform, PAWS (Pain Assessment at Withdrawal Speeds), uses a univariate

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

54 In conclusion, piglet pain assessment by UPAPS can be conducted in real-time b

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

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

57 ettings) scores, pain level (assessed by the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors With Limited Abili

58 lysis, the mean pain score decreased at each pain assessment compared to the POD3 assessment.

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

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

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

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

63 Manual tools for pain assessment from facial expressions have been sugges

64 The pain assessment in animals is challenging as they cannot

65 the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials guidelines, no pain t

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

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

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

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

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

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

72 Ultimately, reliable and valid orofacial pain assessment is a necessary step toward the developme

73 Pain assessment is essential for patient care in many se

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

89 Bovine pain assessment relies on validated behavioral scales re

90 Pain assessment showed no differences across treatment g

91 ndividual (N-of-1) using subjective clinical pain assessments supported by objective validated functi

92 ing, Ocular Surface Disease Index and Ocular Pain Assessment Survey questionnaires were administered,

93 a night shift or not, performed empathy for pain assessment tasks and simulated patient scenarios in

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

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

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

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

98 ured using modified components of a neonatal pain assessment tool before (baseline) and during OCT im

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

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

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

102 Pain assessment tools, participant characteristics, stud

103 Many pain-assessment tools have been developed and restructur

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

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

106 Quantitative pain assessment was virtually absent before our interven

107 clearly defined criterion for postoperative pain assessment were required.

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

109 viation and confidence intervals for various pain assessments were used as the main outcomes for pre-

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

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