↓ Skip to main content

The clinical applicability of a daily summary of patients’ self‐reported postoperative pain—A repeated measure analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Nursing, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The clinical applicability of a daily summary of patients’ self‐reported postoperative pain—A repeated measure analysis
Published in
Journal of Clinical Nursing, May 2017
DOI 10.1111/jocn.13818
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lotta Wikström, Kerstin Eriksson, Bengt Fridlund, Mats Nilsson, Kristofer Årestedt, Anders Broström

Abstract

(I) to determine if a central tendency, median, based on patients' self-rated pain is a clinically applicable daily measure to show patients' postoperative pain on the first day after major surgery (II) and to determine the number of self-ratings required for the calculation of this measure. Perioperative pain traits in medical records are difficult to overview. The clinical applicability of a daily documented summarising measure of patients' self-rated pain scores is little explored. A repeated measure design was carried out at three Swedish country hospitals. Associations between the measures were analysed with non-parametric statistical methods; systematic and individual group changes were analysed separately. Measure I: pain scores at rest and activity postoperative day 1; measure II: retrospective average pain from postoperative day 1. The sample, 190 general- and 289 orthopaedic surgery patients with a mean age of 65; 56% were men. 44% had a pre-operative daily intake of analgesia, and 77% used postoperative opioids. A range of 4-9 pain scores seem to be eligible for the calculation of the daily measures of pain. Rank correlations for individual median scores, based on four ratings, versus retrospective self-rated average pain, were moderate and strengthened with increased numbers of ratings. A systematic group change towards a higher level of reported retrospective pain was significant. The median values were clinically applicable daily measures. The risk of obtaining a higher value than was recalled by patients seemed to be low. Applicability increased with increased frequency of self-rated pain scores and with high-quality pain assessments. The documenting of daily median pain scores at rest and during activity could constitute the basis for obtaining patients' experiences by showing their pain severity trajectories. The measures could also be an important key to predicting postoperative health-related consequences. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 35%
Social Sciences 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Chemical Engineering 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,907,784
of 24,458,924 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#3,428
of 5,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,565
of 317,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#68
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,458,924 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.