OBJECTIVES: To develop a composite measure pain scale tool to assess acute pain in cats and derive an intervention score. METHODS: To develop the prototype composite measure pain scale-feline, words describing painful cats were collected, grouped into behavioural categories and ranked. To assess prototype validity two observers independently assigned composite measure pain scale-feline and numerical rating scale scores to 25 hospitalised cats before and after analgesic treatment. Following interim analysis the prototype was revised (revised composite measure pain scale-feline). To determine intervention score, two observers independently assigned revised composite measure pain scale-feline and numerical rating scale scores to 116 cats. A further observer, a veterinarian, stated whether analgesia was necessary. RESULTS: Mean ± sd decrease in revised composite measure pain scale-feline and numerical rating scale scores following analgesia were 2 · 4 ± 2 · 87 and 1 · 9 ± 2 · 34, respectively (95% confidence interval for mean change in revised composite measure pain scale-feline between 1 · 21 and 3 · 6). Changes in revised composite measure pain scale-feline and numerical rating scale were significantly correlated (r = 0 · 8) (P < 0001). Intervention level score of ≥4/16 was derived for revised composite measure pain scale-feline (26 · 7% misclassification) and ≥3/10 for numerical rating scale (14 · 5% misclassification). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A valid instrument with a recommended analgesic intervention level has been developed to assess acute clinical pain in cats that should be readily applicable in practice.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a composite measure pain scale tool to assess acute pain in cats and derive an intervention score. METHODS: To develop the prototype composite measure pain scale-feline, words describing painful cats were collected, grouped into behavioural categories and ranked. To assess prototype validity two observers independently assigned composite measure pain scale-feline and numerical rating scale scores to 25 hospitalised cats before and after analgesic treatment. Following interim analysis the prototype was revised (revised composite measure pain scale-feline). To determine intervention score, two observers independently assigned revised composite measure pain scale-feline and numerical rating scale scores to 116 cats. A further observer, a veterinarian, stated whether analgesia was necessary. RESULTS: Mean ± sd decrease in revised composite measure pain scale-feline and numerical rating scale scores following analgesia were 2 · 4 ± 2 · 87 and 1 · 9 ± 2 · 34, respectively (95% confidence interval for mean change in revised composite measure pain scale-feline between 1 · 21 and 3 · 6). Changes in revised composite measure pain scale-feline and numerical rating scale were significantly correlated (r = 0 · 8) (P < 0001). Intervention level score of ≥4/16 was derived for revised composite measure pain scale-feline (26 · 7% misclassification) and ≥3/10 for numerical rating scale (14 · 5% misclassification). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A valid instrument with a recommended analgesic intervention level has been developed to assess acute clinical pain in cats that should be readily applicable in practice.
Authors: Paulo V M Steagall; Beatriz P Monteiro; Anne-Marie Lavoie; Diane Frank; Eric Troncy; Stelio P L Luna; Juliana T Brondani Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.008
Authors: Graeme M Doodnaught; Javier Benito; Beatriz P Monteiro; Guy Beauchamp; Stefania C Grasso; Paulo V Steagall Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 1.008
Authors: Masataka Enomoto; Patricia D Kigin; David Bledsoe; Robyn Slone; Jonathan Hash; Charles E Smith; B Duncan X Lascelles Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 2.741