PubMed · 13827115
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J GEIGER. 1960. The heel effect.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13827115/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
AIM: To assess inter-observer reliability of two of the most widely used pain scales for newborns. BACKGROUND: More than 30 scales exist to assess neonatal pain, but they are rarely used because they are too complicated or unreliable. METHOD: We scored pain level in two groups of babies during a heelprick. The first group of 20 premature babies (mean gestational age: 34.2+/-1.2 weeks) was studied using the PIPP scale, and the second group of 20 term babies (mean gestational age: 39.5+/-0.9 weeks) with the NIPS scale. We compared the pain scores assigned by the nurse who took the blood sample (nurse A) and those assigned by another who was present during heelprick (nurse B) with those assigned by a nurse who later watched the video clip of the procedure (nurse C). We chose the latter as "objective" score, because in this case the scorer could watch the recorded event several times, timing and scoring it thoroughly. FINDING: NIPS: 8/20 scores were different between nurse A and nurse C, but only in one case was this difference greater than 2 (Cohen's K=0.60). In the case of nurse B, there were 12/20 differences with respect to the score assigned by nurse C but only one baby was assigned a score that differed by more than 2 (Cohen's K=0.30). PIPP: 16/20 scores were different between nurse A and nurse C; in 9 cases this difference was more than 2 (Cohen's K=0.10). In the case of nurse B, differences with respect to the score assigned by nurse C occurred in 17/20 cases and for six babies the difference in score was more than 2 (Cohen's K=0.16). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate a higher inter-observer reliability of NIPS than PIPP, though NIPS did not have a very high inter-observer agreement score. Caregivers who use them to assess pain in real time at the cribside should be aware of the limits we have highlighted in this study.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: There is considerable controversy regarding the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the management of plantar heel pain. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to investigate the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and to produce a precise estimate of the likely benefits of this therapy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified from the Cochrane Controlled trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from 1966 until September 2004. We included randomised trials which evaluated extracorporeal shock wave therapy used to treat plantar heel pain. Trials comparing extra corporeal shock wave therapy with placebo or different doses of extra corporeal shock wave therapy were considered for inclusion in the review. We independently applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to each identified randomised controlled trial, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of each trial. RESULTS: Six RCTs (n = 897) permitted a pooled estimate of effectiveness based on pain scores collected using 10 cm visual analogue scales for morning pain. The estimated weighted mean difference was 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.83) representing less than 0.5 cm on a visual analogue scale. There was no evidence of heterogeneity and a fixed effects model was used. CONCLUSION: A meta-analysis of data from six randomised-controlled trials that included a total of 897 patients was statistically significant in favour of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of plantar heel pain but the effect size was very small. A sensitivity analysis including only high quality trials did not detect a statistically significant effect.