BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to develop and validate the overall benefit of analgesic score (OBAS), which assesses pain intensity and the opioid-related adverse effects. METHODS: The score was developed and validated in four trials (n=1470 patients). Data from randomized trial I were used to develop the OBAS (factor analysis). Data from randomized trial II were used to compare the resolution of rofecoxib's analgesic effects between OBAS and pain scores. Randomized trial III (spine surgery) was conducted to evaluate prospectively the reliability of the OBAS and to compare its resolution of analgesic treatment with the opioid-related symptom distress scale (OR-SDS) and the modified brief pain inventory short form (m-BPI-sf). Trial IV was conducted to evaluate in patients with a moderate-to-high level of postoperative pain (after major abdominal surgery) the relation of OBAS and pain scores for patients' satisfaction with analgesic therapy. RESULTS: The seven-item OBAS yielded a higher resolution of analgesic treatment effects than pain scores, the OR-SDS and m-BPI-sf. The OBAS has a fair inter-rater reliability (concordance correlation of 0.71 c) and is more sensitive (P=0.03) in indicating the delivery of opioid boluses than the dedicated OR-SDS. The OBAS, but not pain scores at rest or pain scores during movement, explained significant variance in patients' satisfaction with postoperative pain therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The OBAS is a simple, multi-dimensional quality assessment instrument to measure patients' benefit from postoperative pain therapy. Opioid symptom distress, pain relief, and patients' satisfaction are combined in a reliable and valid tool.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to develop and validate the overall benefit of analgesic score (OBAS), which assesses pain intensity and the opioid-related adverse effects. METHODS: The score was developed and validated in four trials (n=1470 patients). Data from randomized trial I were used to develop the OBAS (factor analysis). Data from randomized trial II were used to compare the resolution of rofecoxib's analgesic effects between OBAS and pain scores. Randomized trial III (spine surgery) was conducted to evaluate prospectively the reliability of the OBAS and to compare its resolution of analgesic treatment with the opioid-related symptom distress scale (OR-SDS) and the modified brief pain inventory short form (m-BPI-sf). Trial IV was conducted to evaluate in patients with a moderate-to-high level of postoperative pain (after major abdominal surgery) the relation of OBAS and pain scores for patients' satisfaction with analgesic therapy. RESULTS: The seven-item OBAS yielded a higher resolution of analgesic treatment effects than pain scores, the OR-SDS and m-BPI-sf. The OBAS has a fair inter-rater reliability (concordance correlation of 0.71 c) and is more sensitive (P=0.03) in indicating the delivery of opioid boluses than the dedicated OR-SDS. The OBAS, but not pain scores at rest or pain scores during movement, explained significant variance in patients' satisfaction with postoperative pain therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The OBAS is a simple, multi-dimensional quality assessment instrument to measure patients' benefit from postoperative pain therapy. Opioid symptom distress, pain relief, and patients' satisfaction are combined in a reliable and valid tool.
Authors: Michael C Edwards; Evan Sorokin; Mark Brzezienski; Farzad R Nahai; Richard Scranton; Holly Wall; Simeon Wall; Stephan Finical; Kevin Smith Journal: Plast Surg (Oakv) Date: 2015 Impact factor: 0.947
Authors: Justin Oltman; Oleg Militsakh; Mark D'Agostino; Brittany Kauffman; Robert Lindau; Andrew Coughlin; William Lydiatt; Daniel Lydiatt; Russell Smith; Aru Panwar Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: David C Bosanquet; Graeme K Ambler; Cherry-Ann Waldron; Emma Thomas-Jones; Lucy Brookes-Howell; Mark Kelson; Tim Pickles; Debbie Harris; Deborah Fitzsimmons; Neeraj Saxena; Christopher P Twine Journal: Trials Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Jacob Hutchins; Peter Argenta; Aaron Berg; Jason Habeck; Alexander Kaizer; Melissa A Geller Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Daniel Dirkmann; Harald Groeben; Hassan Farhan; David L Stahl; Matthias Eikermann Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2015-03-09 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Timothy H Mungroop; Denise P Veelo; Olivier R Busch; Susan van Dieren; Thomas M van Gulik; Tom M Karsten; Steve M de Castro; Marc B Godfried; Bram Thiel; Markus W Hollmann; Philipp Lirk; Marc G Besselink Journal: Trials Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Liesbeth M van Vliet; Sandra van Dulmen; Bram Thiel; Gerard W van Deelen; Stephanie Immerzeel; Marc B Godfried; Jozien M Bensing Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 2.692