↓ Skip to main content

Validation of Orthopedic Postoperative Pain Assessment Methods for Dogs: A Prospective, Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Validation of Orthopedic Postoperative Pain Assessment Methods for Dogs: A Prospective, Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049480
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pascale Rialland, Simon Authier, Martin Guillot, Jérôme R. E. del Castillo, Daphnée Veilleux-Lemieux, Diane Frank, Dominique Gauvin, Eric Troncy

Abstract

In the context of translational research, there is growing interest in studying surgical orthopedic pain management approaches that are common to humans and dogs. The validity of postoperative pain assessment methods is uncertain with regards to responsiveness and the potential interference of analgesia. The hypothesis was that video analysis (as a reference), electrodermal activity, and two subjective pain scales (VAS and 4A-VET) would detect different levels of pain intensity in dogs after a standardized trochleoplasty procedure. In this prospective, blinded, randomized study, postoperative pain was assessed in 25 healthy dogs during a 48-hour time frame (T). Pain was managed with placebo (Group 1, n = 10), preemptive and multimodal analgesia (Group 2, n = 5), or preemptive analgesia consisting in oral tramadol (Group 3, n = 10). Changes over time among groups were analyzed using generalized estimating equations. Multivariate regression tested the significance of relationships between pain scales and video analysis. Video analysis identified that one orthopedic behavior, namely 'Walking with full weight bearing' of the operated leg, decreased more in Group 1 at T24 (indicative of pain), whereas three behaviors indicative of sedation decreased in Group 2 at T24 (all p<0.004). Electrodermal activity was higher in Group 1 than in Groups 2 and 3 until T1 (p<0.0003). The VAS was not responsive. 4A-VET showed divergent results as its orthopedic component (4A-VETleg) detected lower pain in Group 2 until T12 (p<0.0009), but its interactive component (4A-VETbeh) was increased in Group 2 from T12 to T48 (p<0.001). Concurrent validity established that 4A-VETleg scores the painful orthopedic condition accurately and that pain assessment through 4A-VETbeh and VAS was severely biased by the sedative side-effect of the analgesics. Finally, the video analysis offered a concise template for assessment in dogs with acute orthopedic pain. However, subjective pain quantification methods and electrodermal activity need further investigation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Master 15 11%
Researcher 12 9%
Other 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 34 25%
Unknown 38 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 36 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Psychology 2 1%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 43 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 November 2012.
All research outputs
#18,320,524
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#153,900
of 193,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,189
of 159,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,488
of 4,755 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 159,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,755 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.