Reliability of three pain assessment tools in children requiring dental treatment: A comparative clinical study.

Priya Nagarwal, Vivek Rana, Nikhil Srivastava, Noopur Kaushik, Tushar Pruthi
{"title":"Reliability of three pain assessment tools in children requiring dental treatment: A comparative clinical study.","authors":"Priya Nagarwal,&nbsp;Vivek Rana,&nbsp;Nikhil Srivastava,&nbsp;Noopur Kaushik,&nbsp;Tushar Pruthi","doi":"10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_132_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The appropriate intervention of pain is based on its accurate evaluation, which is a challenge in the pediatric population as they often do not have the language development or cognitive sophistication to describe it correctly. Untreated pain has a negative impact on the psychosocial well-being of children.</p><p><strong>Aim and objectives: </strong>The study aimed to evaluate and compare the reliability of different pain assessment scales, namely, the Wong Baker Facial Pain Rating scale (WBFPS), Modified Emoji Pain Scale (MEPS), and indigenously developed indigenously made GIF Pain Scale (SPGPS) in children undergoing dental treatment under local anesthesia (LA).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study included 152 children aged 4-6 years with a Frankl behavior rating of score 3 and 4 (positive and definitely positive) requiring dental treatment under LA. After local infiltration, each child with two independent observers was asked to record the response of the current pain on the WBFPS, MEPS, and SPGPS. The reliability of the pain scales was assessed on the basis of similar responses given by all three individuals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Pearson correlation test was performed to determine the correlation among the scales. A very strong correlation was found between the WBFPS and SPGPS (r = 0.848), while a moderate correlation was found among the WBFPS and MEPS (r = 0.691). A strong correlation was found between the SPGPS and MEPS (r = 0.723).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SPGPS proved to be a more reliable pain assessment tool compared to the WBFPS and MEPS in clinical pediatric dentistry.</p>","PeriodicalId":35797,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry","volume":"41 2","pages":"126-132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_132_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The appropriate intervention of pain is based on its accurate evaluation, which is a challenge in the pediatric population as they often do not have the language development or cognitive sophistication to describe it correctly. Untreated pain has a negative impact on the psychosocial well-being of children.

Aim and objectives: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the reliability of different pain assessment scales, namely, the Wong Baker Facial Pain Rating scale (WBFPS), Modified Emoji Pain Scale (MEPS), and indigenously developed indigenously made GIF Pain Scale (SPGPS) in children undergoing dental treatment under local anesthesia (LA).

Materials and methods: The study included 152 children aged 4-6 years with a Frankl behavior rating of score 3 and 4 (positive and definitely positive) requiring dental treatment under LA. After local infiltration, each child with two independent observers was asked to record the response of the current pain on the WBFPS, MEPS, and SPGPS. The reliability of the pain scales was assessed on the basis of similar responses given by all three individuals.

Results: The Pearson correlation test was performed to determine the correlation among the scales. A very strong correlation was found between the WBFPS and SPGPS (r = 0.848), while a moderate correlation was found among the WBFPS and MEPS (r = 0.691). A strong correlation was found between the SPGPS and MEPS (r = 0.723).

Conclusion: The SPGPS proved to be a more reliable pain assessment tool compared to the WBFPS and MEPS in clinical pediatric dentistry.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三种疼痛评估工具在需要牙科治疗的儿童中的可靠性:一项比较临床研究。
背景:对疼痛的适当干预是基于对疼痛的准确评估,这对儿科人群来说是一个挑战,因为他们通常没有正确描述疼痛的语言发展或认知能力。未经治疗的疼痛会对儿童的心理健康产生负面影响。目的:本研究旨在评估和比较不同疼痛评估量表的可靠性,即Wong Baker面部疼痛评分量表(WBFPS)、改良表情符号疼痛量表(MEPS)、,以及在接受局部麻醉(LA)牙科治疗的儿童中自主开发的GIF疼痛量表(SPGPS)。材料和方法:该研究包括152名4-6岁的儿童,其Frankl行为评分为3分和4分(阳性和肯定阳性),需要在LA下进行牙科治疗。局部浸润后,每个有两名独立观察者的孩子被要求在WBFPS、MEPS和SPGPS上记录当前疼痛的反应。疼痛量表的可靠性是根据三个人给出的相似反应进行评估的。结果:采用Pearson相关检验来确定量表之间的相关性。WBFPS和SPGPS之间的相关性非常强(r=0.848),而WBFPS和MEPS之间的相关性中等(r=0.691)。SPGPS和MEPS间的相关性很强(r=0.723)。结论:在临床儿科牙科中,与WBFPS和MEP相比,SPGPS是一种更可靠的疼痛评估工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry (ISSN - 0970-4388) is the official organ of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. The journal publishes original articles and case reports pertaining to pediatric and preventive dentistry.
期刊最新文献
Bite force evaluation at maximal intercuspal position: An in vivo comparative study between stainless steel and zirconia crowns on primary molar teeth. Traumatic dental injuries - The psychological perspective! Determination and correlation of matrix metalloproteases profile and total antioxidant capacity in severe early childhood caries children - A randomized clinical trial. Assessment of changes in Streptococcus pyogenes levels using N-acetylgalactosamine-6-sulfatase marker and pharyngeal airway space with appliance therapy in mouth breathers - An ELISA-based study. Reliability of three pain assessment tools in children requiring dental treatment: A comparative clinical study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1