验证痛觉监测在指导术中镇痛治疗方面的进展。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1097/ACO.0000000000001390
Hendrik Van Santvliet, Hugo E M Vereecke
{"title":"验证痛觉监测在指导术中镇痛治疗方面的进展。","authors":"Hendrik Van Santvliet, Hugo E M Vereecke","doi":"10.1097/ACO.0000000000001390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This article summarizes the current level of validation for several nociception monitors using a categorized validation process to facilitate the comparison of performance.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Nociception monitors improve the detection of a shift in the nociception and antinociception balance during anesthesia, guiding perioperative analgesic therapy. A clear overview and comparison of the validation process for these monitors is missing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Within a 2-year time-frame, we identified validation studies for four monitors [analgesia nociception index (ANI), nociception level monitor (NOL), surgical pleth index (SPI), and pupillometry]. We categorized these studies in one out of six mandatory validation steps: developmental studies, clinical validation studies, pharmacological validation studies, clinical utility studies, outcome improvement studies and economical evaluation studies. The current level of validation for most monitors is mainly focused on the first three categories, whereas ANI, NOL, and SPI advanced most in the availability of clinical utility studies and provide confirmation of a clinical outcome improvement. Analysis of economical value for public health effects is not yet publicly available for the studied monitors.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>This review proposes a stepwise structure for validation of new monitoring technology, which facilitates comparison between the level of validation of different devices and identifies the need for future research questions.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Progress in the validation of nociception monitoring in guiding intraoperative analgesic therapy.\",\"authors\":\"Hendrik Van Santvliet, Hugo E M Vereecke\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACO.0000000000001390\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This article summarizes the current level of validation for several nociception monitors using a categorized validation process to facilitate the comparison of performance.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Nociception monitors improve the detection of a shift in the nociception and antinociception balance during anesthesia, guiding perioperative analgesic therapy. A clear overview and comparison of the validation process for these monitors is missing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Within a 2-year time-frame, we identified validation studies for four monitors [analgesia nociception index (ANI), nociception level monitor (NOL), surgical pleth index (SPI), and pupillometry]. We categorized these studies in one out of six mandatory validation steps: developmental studies, clinical validation studies, pharmacological validation studies, clinical utility studies, outcome improvement studies and economical evaluation studies. The current level of validation for most monitors is mainly focused on the first three categories, whereas ANI, NOL, and SPI advanced most in the availability of clinical utility studies and provide confirmation of a clinical outcome improvement. Analysis of economical value for public health effects is not yet publicly available for the studied monitors.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>This review proposes a stepwise structure for validation of new monitoring technology, which facilitates comparison between the level of validation of different devices and identifies the need for future research questions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000001390\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000001390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

综述目的:本文总结了几种痛觉监测仪目前的验证水平,采用了分类验证流程,以便于对性能进行比较:最近的研究结果:痛觉监测仪能更好地检测麻醉过程中痛觉和抗痛觉平衡的变化,从而指导围术期镇痛治疗。目前还没有对这些监测器的验证过程进行清晰的概述和比较:结果:在两年的时间内,我们确定了四种监测器(镇痛痛觉指数(ANI)、痛觉水平监测器(NOL)、手术褶皱指数(SPI)和瞳孔测量法)的验证研究。我们将这些研究分为六个强制性验证步骤中的一个:开发研究、临床验证研究、药理学验证研究、临床实用性研究、结果改进研究和经济性评估研究。大多数监测仪目前的验证水平主要集中在前三类,而 ANI、NOL 和 SPI 在临床实用性研究方面进展最大,并提供了临床结果改善的确认。小结:本综述提出了新监测技术验证的分步结构,有助于比较不同设备的验证水平,并确定未来研究问题的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Progress in the validation of nociception monitoring in guiding intraoperative analgesic therapy.

Purpose of review: This article summarizes the current level of validation for several nociception monitors using a categorized validation process to facilitate the comparison of performance.

Recent findings: Nociception monitors improve the detection of a shift in the nociception and antinociception balance during anesthesia, guiding perioperative analgesic therapy. A clear overview and comparison of the validation process for these monitors is missing.

Results: Within a 2-year time-frame, we identified validation studies for four monitors [analgesia nociception index (ANI), nociception level monitor (NOL), surgical pleth index (SPI), and pupillometry]. We categorized these studies in one out of six mandatory validation steps: developmental studies, clinical validation studies, pharmacological validation studies, clinical utility studies, outcome improvement studies and economical evaluation studies. The current level of validation for most monitors is mainly focused on the first three categories, whereas ANI, NOL, and SPI advanced most in the availability of clinical utility studies and provide confirmation of a clinical outcome improvement. Analysis of economical value for public health effects is not yet publicly available for the studied monitors.

Summary: This review proposes a stepwise structure for validation of new monitoring technology, which facilitates comparison between the level of validation of different devices and identifies the need for future research questions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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