Pain Evaluation(통증 평가)란 무엇입니까?
Pain Evaluation 통증 평가 - The results of repeated measures ANOVA showed that the mean scores of pain intensity and its subscales (sensory, affective, pain evaluation, and miscellaneous) decreased over the three time points in the intervention group (P<0. [1] This case report explores variability in clinical and neurophysiological aspects of pain evaluation in early post-trauma stages. [2] First, authors did not mention the time points and frequency of pain evaluation. [3] Secondary endpoints were MRI grade severity and joint space assessment, WOMAC score, pain evaluation, knee range of motion and patient's satisfaction. [4] CONCLUSION The present study showed that the assessment of pressure pain threshold through algometry presents satisfactory intraclass correlation coefficient values, considering different time and examiners, contributing to the spread of the use of this tool as a quantitative method of pain evaluation in myofascial trigger points. [5] Our answers to the questions are as follows: First, as with the quality of life, both the pain evaluation and the Harris hip score were obtained at the last followup. [6] Pain evaluation in both groupsvia Visual Analogue Scoring was recorded before surgery and at 1month post-operative follow-up. [7] The primary endpoint was the pain evaluation, secondary endpoints: WCS, overall satisfaction of the patient, anal sphincter spasm, scarring, and the incidence of postoperative stenosis. [8] , 10 scales were provided for pain evaluation. [9] Time of complete healing and pain evaluation by VAS scale were evaluated. [10] Conclusions This study validated the Italian versions of LANSS and PD-Q as reliable instruments with good psychometric characteristics, for pain evaluation, discriminating between nociceptive and neuropathic pain. [11] The purpose of this research was to examine the pain evaluation and treatment procedures used by practicing nurses. [12] Over time, painful procedures decreased, but pain evaluations, parental involvement in care, individualized observations, and SSC increased (all p < 0. [13] At the baseline, muscle activity and pain evaluation was performed. [14] The pain evaluation by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). [15] Information collected from charts included demographic and insurance information, as well as pain evaluation, diagnosis, disposition, provider education, and provider documentation of efforts to limit opioid abuse. [16] Studies evaluating outcomes of PRGF reported significant improvement when compared with placebo due to large effect sizes, whereas a potential clinically significant difference was detected in the same comparison parameters in pain evaluation. [17] Pig clinical examinations and pain evaluations showed efficient and constant pain control at the half dose, and few adverse events were observed. [18] Primary outcome will be number of falls and secondary outcomes include bone mineral density, body composition, pain evaluation, weekly physical activity, single-task and dual-task gait patterns, balance, Fullerton Functional Fitness Test and assessment of the mini-BESTest. [19] Pain evaluation was performed pre-ECT, after 1 month and after 6 months with ECT. [20] Yet, we have to interpret this carefully, because pain evaluation is subjective and some of the smokers have quit smoking electronic cigarettes during the treatment. [21] However, there are still many shortcomings and differences in pain evaluation and its management. [22] Visual analogue scale (VAS) score (pain evaluation) and Ramsay sedation scale (sedation evaluation) at 1, 4, 8, 12, 24 and 48 hours, frequency of PCIA pump pressing and dosage of anesthetics, and the incidence of adverse events related to analgesics within 48 hours after operation in patients in the 2 groups were compared. [23] Pain evaluation was performed at 30 min and at 1. [24] All of the guidelines persisted on a standard method for pain evaluation. [25] Dimeglio scores, radiographs, and pain evaluations were used to analyze outcomes. [26] The aim of this study was to analyze and compare dance-style specific pain with regard to prevalence, localization, subjective pain perception, duration, frequency, temporary dynamics and pain evaluation in dancers of the two popular dance styles (ballet and contemporary dance). [27] Results The accuracy rate of pain evaluation, nursing satisfaction rate and cancer pain relief rate of the observation group were 80. [28] This study aims to broaden the knowledge about the mechanisms of pain evaluation and the benefit of the nursing care traced, evaluating the application of the scales according to the patient adult profile found in the ICUs. [29] Pain evaluation was performed at baseline, after 1 month of taping and after 1 further month without taping. [30] CONCLUSION NVPS-R-TR is a reliable and a valid measuring tool for the pain evaluation of sedated adults who are under mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. [31] The main outcomes were the occurrence of hip fracture, pain evaluation (VAS score) and adverse events occurrence (including severe adverse events and deaths). [32] Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) was used for pain evaluation. [33] These differences of functional score and pain evaluation were statistically significant. [34] Results: Four main issues have been addressed: 1) the identification of a core group of painful situations associated with care (washing, dressing/change, transfer/mobilization), currently considered as inefficiently managed; 2) the selection of an appropriate assessment methodology including criteria and tools for pain evaluation; 3) the definition of health professionals' training needs and organizational requirements for their implementation; and 4) the perceived usefulness of a robot-assisted intervention for the management of pain in dementia in daily practice. [35] This may reflect usual pain behaviour, but it also implies that the pain evaluation should be further studied. [36] AIM Pain evaluation in children and its diagnosis are problems not always easy to solve. [37] FLACC score was used for pain evaluation during venipuncture, and self-description questionnaire was used for overall evaluation of pain during the whole treatment process after venipuncture. [38] This review presents the clinical indications of artificial joint replacements, etiologies of postoperative pain, and clinical applications of fused SPECT/CT images in pain evaluation after hip or knee joint replacement. [39] The pain evaluation was carried out with modified Melbourne pain scoring scale. [40] These findings were correlated with the pain evaluation by NFCS and NIPS. [41] A questionnaire study was conducted among 131 veterinarians practicing in the city of Medellin, Colombia, to assess views on pain evaluation and management in dogs and cats. [42] At T0, both groups received sEMG/KNG and pain evaluation by the VAS scale. [43] Full assessment was done including medications, clinical examination (pain evaluation by visual analogue scale and assessment of disease activity by SLE disease activity index), laboratory investigations, and albumin–creatinine ratio. [44] Methods: Transversal study, pain evaluations consist of: 1) presence / intensity; 2) characteristic of painful experience; 3) episode of pain in the last 30 days and 4) interference of pain at work. [45]반복 측정 ANOVA의 결과, 중재군에서 3개 시점에 걸쳐 통증 강도 및 하위 척도(감각, 감정, 통증 평가, 기타)의 평균 점수가 감소하는 것으로 나타났습니다(P<0. [1] 이 사례 보고서는 외상 후 초기 단계에서 통증 평가의 임상 및 신경 생리학적 측면의 다양성을 탐구합니다. [2] 첫째, 저자들은 통증 평가의 시점과 빈도를 언급하지 않았다. [3] 이차 종료점은 MRI 등급 중증도 및 관절 공간 평가, WOMAC 점수, 통증 평가, 무릎 운동 범위 및 환자 만족도였습니다. [4] 결론 본 연구는 알고리즘을 통한 압통 역치 평가가 서로 다른 시간과 검사자를 고려한 만족스러운 클래스 내 상관계수 값을 보여 근막 통증유발점에서 통증 평가의 정량적 방법으로 이 도구의 사용이 확산되는 데 기여함을 보여주었다. [5] 질문에 대한 답은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 삶의 질과 마찬가지로 마지막 추시에서 통증 평가와 Harris 고관절 점수를 모두 얻었다. [6] Visual Analogue Scoring을 통한 두 그룹의 통증 평가는 수술 전과 수술 후 1개월 추적 관찰에서 기록되었습니다. [7] 1차 평가변수는 통증 평가, 2차 평가변수는 WCS, 환자의 전반적인 만족도, 항문 괄약근 경련, 흉터, 수술 후 협착의 발생률이었다. [8] , 통증 평가를 위해 10개의 척도가 제공되었습니다. [9] VAS 척도에 의한 완전한 치유 시간 및 통증 평가를 평가하였다. [10] 결론 이 연구는 이탈리아 버전의 LANSS와 PD-Q가 통각수용성 통증과 신경병증성 통증을 구별하는 통증 평가를 위한 좋은 심리 측정적 특성을 가진 신뢰할 수 있는 도구임을 검증했습니다. [11] 이 연구의 목적은 간호사가 사용하는 통증 평가 및 치료 절차를 조사하는 것입니다. [12] 시간이 지남에 따라 고통스러운 절차는 감소했지만 통증 평가, 치료에 대한 부모의 참여, 개별 관찰 및 SSC는 증가했습니다(모두 p < 0. [13] 베이스라인에서 근육 활동 및 통증 평가를 수행했습니다. [14] NRS(Numeric Rating Scale)에 의한 통증 평가. [15] 차트에서 수집한 정보에는 인구 통계 및 보험 정보는 물론 통증 평가, 진단, 처분, 제공자 교육, 오피오이드 남용을 제한하기 위한 노력에 대한 제공자 문서가 포함되었습니다. [16] PRGF의 결과를 평가하는 연구는 큰 효과 크기로 인해 위약과 비교할 때 상당한 개선을 보고한 반면, 통증 평가에서 동일한 비교 매개변수에서 잠재적인 임상적으로 유의한 차이가 감지되었습니다. [17] 돼지 임상 검사 및 통증 평가는 절반 용량에서 효율적이고 지속적인 통증 조절을 보여주었고 부작용은 거의 관찰되지 않았습니다. [18] 1차 결과는 낙상 횟수이고 2차 결과에는 골밀도, 체성분, 통증 평가, 주간 신체 활동, 단일 작업 및 이중 작업 보행 패턴, 균형, Fullerton 기능 피트니스 테스트 및 mini-BESTest 평가가 포함됩니다. [19] 통증 평가는 ECT 전, 1개월 후 및 ECT로 6개월 후에 수행되었습니다. [20] 그러나 통증 평가는 주관적이고 일부 흡연자는 치료 중 전자 담배를 끊었으므로 신중하게 해석해야 합니다. [21] 그러나 통증 평가와 그 관리에는 여전히 많은 미흡함과 차이점이 있다. [22] 1, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48시간의 시각 아날로그 척도(VAS) 점수(통증 평가) 및 램지 진정 척도(진정 평가), PCIA 펌프 압박 빈도 및 마취제 용량, 관련 부작용 발생률 두 그룹의 환자에서 수술 후 48시간 이내에 진통제와 비교하였다. [23] 통증 평가는 30분 및 1시에 수행되었습니다. [24] 모든 지침은 통증 평가를 위한 표준 방법을 유지했습니다. [25] Dimeglio 점수, 방사선 사진 및 통증 평가를 사용하여 결과를 분석했습니다. [26] 이 연구의 목적은 두 대중 무용 스타일(발레와 현대무용)의 무용수의 유병률, 국소화, 주관적 통증 지각, 지속 시간, 빈도, 일시적인 역학 및 통증 평가와 관련하여 춤 스타일의 특정 통증을 분석하고 비교하는 것입니다. [27] 결과 관찰군의 통증 평가 정확도, 간호 만족도 및 암 통증 완화율은 80이었다. [28] 이 연구는 ICU에서 발견되는 환자 성인 프로필에 따라 척도의 적용을 평가하고 추적된 간호의 이점과 통증 평가의 메커니즘에 대한 지식을 넓히는 것을 목표로 합니다. [29] 통증 평가는 기준선에서, 테이핑 1개월 후 및 테이핑 없이 1개월 추가로 수행되었습니다. [30] 결론 NVPS-R-TR은 중환자실에서 기계적 환기를 받고 있는 진정된 성인의 통증 평가를 위한 신뢰할 수 있고 유효한 측정 도구입니다. [31] 주요 결과는 고관절 골절 발생, 통증 평가(VAS 점수), 이상반응 발생(심각한 이상반응 및 사망 포함)이었다. [32] NPRS(Numeric Pain Rating Scale)는 통증 평가를 위해 사용되었습니다. [33] 기능 점수와 통증 평가의 이러한 차이는 통계적으로 유의했습니다. [34] 결과: 4가지 주요 문제가 해결되었습니다. 1) 현재 비효율적으로 관리되는 것으로 간주되는 치료(씻기, 옷 입기/교체, 이동/이동)와 관련된 고통스러운 상황의 핵심 그룹 식별; 2) 통증 평가를 위한 기준과 도구를 포함하는 적절한 평가 방법론의 선택; 3) 의료 전문가의 훈련 요구 사항 및 구현을 위한 조직적 요구 사항의 정의; 및 4) 일상적인 실습에서 치매의 통증 관리를 위한 로봇 지원 중재의 인지된 유용성. [35] 이것은 일반적인 통증 행동을 반영할 수 있지만 통증 평가가 더 연구되어야 함을 의미하기도 합니다. [36] 겨냥하다 소아의 통증 평가 및 진단 문제는 항상 해결하기 쉽지 않습니다. [37] 정맥 천자 시 통증 평가는 FLACC 점수를, 정맥 천자 후 치료 과정 전반에 걸친 통증 평가는 자기 설명 설문지를 사용하였다. [38] 이 리뷰는 인공 관절 교체의 임상 적응증, 수술 후 통증의 병인 및 고관절 또는 무릎 관절 교체 후 통증 평가에서 융합 SPECT/CT 영상의 임상 적용을 제시합니다. [39] 통증 평가는 수정된 Melbourne 통증 점수 척도로 수행되었습니다. [40] 이러한 결과는 NFCS 및 NIPS에 의한 통증 평가와 상관관계가 있었습니다. [41] 개와 고양이의 통증 평가 및 관리에 대한 견해를 평가하기 위해 콜롬비아 메델린 시에 있는 131명의 수의사를 대상으로 설문 조사가 수행되었습니다. [42] T0에서 두 그룹 모두 sEMG/KNG 및 VAS 척도에 의한 통증 평가를 받았습니다. [43] 약물, 임상 검사(시각적 아날로그 척도에 의한 통증 평가 및 SLE 질병 활성 지수에 의한 질병 활성 평가), 실험실 조사 및 알부민-크레아티닌 비율을 포함하는 전체 평가가 수행되었습니다. [44] 방법: 횡단 연구, 통증 평가는 1) 존재/강도; 2) 고통스러운 경험의 특징; 3) 지난 30일 동안의 통증 에피소드 및 4) 직장에서의 통증 간섭. [45]
visual analog scale 시각적 아날로그 스케일
Postoperative patient-reported outcome measurement was performed using the Oswestry Disability Index, Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, and the visual analog scale. [1] Methods Patients with CLBP (N=471) received one of the four treatments and were evaluated, prospectively and comprehensively, once every month for six months using a visual analog scale (VAS) for LBP, the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, the JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), the EuroQol five-dimensions three-levels (EQ-5D-3L), and the Short Form-8 item health survey (SF-8). [2] At 48 weeks, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire pain-related disorder, walking ability, social life function, and lumbar function scores were significantly lower, while the visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain was higher in patients with subsequent fracture. [3] The study outcomes were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain Evaluation, serum vitamin D level, and Cooper 12-Minute Walk Test for Functional Capacity Evaluation, while the Short-Form Health Survey (SF) was used for assessment of quality of life. [4] Clinical outcomes were measured before surgery and 6 months postoperatively using the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ); Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of low back pain, leg pain, and leg numbness; Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire; and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36). [5] All patients underwent neurological and functional evaluation before and after surgery according to the following: Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association back pain evaluation questionnaire. [6] Surgical outcomes were assessed using Oswestry disability index, visual analog scale (VAS; low back pain (LBP), lower-extremity pain, numbness, LBP in motion, in standing, and in sitting), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for intermittent claudication (JOA score), and Nakai's scoring system. [7] Visual analog scale was used for post-operative pain evaluation at the 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24 hours. [8] The assessment tools were visual analog scale (VAS) for pain evaluation, plastic ruler for TMJ ROM measurements while Fonseca's questionnaire was used for evaluation of TM function at baseline and 4 weeks later. [9] For estimating the swelling, distances between tragicus to corner of mouth, tragicus to pogonion, and gonion to cantus were measured; for pain evaluation, the visual analog scale was used. [10] Pain evaluation was made using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at rest. [11] The intraoperative analgesic requirement was recorded, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain evaluation and the Postoperative Patient Satisfaction Scale were applied to all patients. [12] The patients were given a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain evaluation on the 1st postoperative day (3rd h) and on the 3rd and 6th days after discharge. [13] Outcome measures, including EQ-5D, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, the JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (BPEQ), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Medical Outcomes Study SF-8, and the visual analog scale, were investigated at baseline and every one month thereafter. [14] Secondary outcome measures included scores on the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), visual analog scale (VAS) for lower back pain, and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). [15] Pain evaluation was performed using the visual analog scale, and evaluation of shoulder flexion and abduction ranges of motion was assessed using a goniometer pre- and post-intervention. [16] Clinical symptoms were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Index, and visual analog scale (VAS). [17] Preoperative pain evaluation was done with Visual Analog Scale, and for measuring preoperative anxiety, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale was used. [18] Wong-Baker faces pain-rating scale (WBFPS), visual analog scale (VAS), and Venham's clinical anxiety rating scale (VCARS) were used for pain evaluation. [19] Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, JOA-back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and 100-mm visual analog scale for low back pain. [20] Assessments with instruments including the Oswestry Disability Index, the visual analog scale, and the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire will be performed at four time points to explore the difference of clinical efficacy between two groups. [21]수술 후 환자 보고 결과 측정은 Oswestry 장애 지수, 일본 정형 외과 협회 요통 평가 설문지 및 시각적 아날로그 척도를 사용하여 수행되었습니다. [1] 방법 CLBP 환자(N=471)는 4가지 치료 중 하나를 받고 LBP에 대한 Visual analog scale(VAS), 일본 정형외과 협회(JOA) 점수, JOA 요통 평가 설문지(JOABPEQ), Roland-Morris 장애 설문지(RDQ), EuroQol 5차원 3단계(EQ-5D-3L) 및 Short Form-8 항목 건강 설문조사(SF-8). [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7] nan [8] nan [9] 부종을 추정하기 위해 이주에서 입꼬리까지, 이주에서 포고니온까지, 고니온에서 캔투스까지의 거리를 측정했습니다. 통증 평가는 시각 아날로그 척도를 사용하였다. [10] 휴식 시 VAS(Visual Analog Scale)를 사용하여 통증 평가를 수행했습니다. [11] nan [12] nan [13] nan [14] nan [15] nan [16] nan [17] nan [18] nan [19] nan [20] nan [21]
visual analogue scale 시각적 아날로그 스케일
Researchers recorded information from a patient information form, a visual analogue scale (VAS), a pain evaluation form, and the vital signs recording form. [1] Pain evaluation during injection was evaluated with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), while accuracy of the procedure was evaluated with ultrasound (US). [2] Parameters measured before and after surgery were visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain evaluation, grip strength, range of motion (ROM), ulnar variance, carpal height index, lunate height index, and the scapholunate and scaphocapitate angles. [3] Secondary outcomes included Skindex-16 subscale score, Dermatology Life Quality Index scale total score, total lesion count and inflammatory lesion count, and visual analogue scale scores for itch and pain evaluation. [4] Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF. [5] Clinical and pain evaluation were done using Harris Hip score (HHS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) score. [6] The pre- and post-operative changes in the following were compared retrospectively between the two groups: surgical factors and clinical evaluations including JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ), visual analogue scale (VAS) on lower back pain, buttock/lower limb pain, and buttock/lower limb numbness, and Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RDQ). [7] Each visit consists of measuring the target lesion size and pain evaluation by Visual analogue scale (VAS). [8] The analyzed variables included global alignment, radiological parameters of fused segments, asymptomatic and symptomatic ASD incidence, clinical outcomes at 3 years postoperatively using the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire data, visual analogue scale scores for low back pain, lower extremity pain, and lower extremity numbness. [9] Postoperative pain evaluation was carried out by helping patients mark the degree of pain on the 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) on the postoperative 2 nd , 6 th , 8 th , 12 th , 24 th and 48 th hours and also on 3 rd , 5 th and 7 th days. [10] Postoperative pain evaluation was performed at 0, 30, 60 and 120 min with visual analogue scale (VAS). [11]연구원들은 환자 정보 양식, 시각 아날로그 척도(VAS), 통증 평가 양식 및 활력 징후 기록 양식에서 정보를 기록했습니다. [1] 주사 중 통증 평가는 VAS(Visual Analogue Scale)로 평가하고 절차의 정확성은 초음파(US)로 평가했습니다. [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7] nan [8] nan [9] 수술 후 통증 평가는 수술 후 2시간, 6시간, 8시간, 12시간, 24시간, 48시간과 3시간에 100mm VAS(Visual Analogue Scale)에 통증 정도를 표시하도록 하여 시행하였다. , 5일 및 7일. [10] nan [11]
numerical rating scale
Their clinical outcomes were assessed using the numerical rating scale and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) preoperatively and at 3 months and 1 year after surgery. [1] Clinical outcomes were measured using the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), a numerical rating scale (NRS) of back pain and leg pain, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) at baseline and at 6 weeks. [2] We assessed the following clinical information: Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score; numerical rating scale (NRS) for low back pain (LBP), leg pain, and leg numbness; Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire; Roland- Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); and Short Form 8 (SF-8) as HRQOL. [3] We evaluated the patients using: Barthel Index (BI), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Norton scale (NS), Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR), pain evaluation with Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) or Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD). [4] We assessed clinical information; Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score; numerical rating scale (NRS) for low back pain, for leg pain, and for leg numbness; Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ); JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ); Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); and Short Form 8 (SF-8) as patient reported outcomes. [5]그들의 임상 결과는 수술 전과 수술 후 3개월 및 1년에 수치 평가 척도와 일본 정형외과 요통 평가 설문지(JOABPEQ)를 사용하여 평가되었습니다. [1] 임상 결과는 ZCQ(Zurich Claudication Questionnaire), 요통 및 다리 통증의 수치 평가 척도(NRS), 기준선 및 6주차에 일본 정형외과 협회 요통 평가 설문지(JOABPEQ)를 사용하여 측정되었습니다. [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5]
low back pain 하부 요통
QOL related to low back pain was evaluated using the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back-Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ: pain, and lumbar, and gait function). [1] Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) and numeric rating scale (NRS) for low back pain, lower limb pain, and lower limb numbness. [2] Patients and methods A total of 1000 participants either with (+) or without (−) CLBP answered the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), which assesses five domains of CLBP: low back pain, lumbar function, walking ability, social life function and mental health. [3]요통과 관련된 QOL은 일본정형외과학회 요통평가 설문지(JOABPEQ: pain, and lumbar, and gait function)를 이용하여 평가하였다. [1] 임상 결과는 일본 정형외과 협회 요통 평가 설문지(JOABPEQ)와 요통, 하지 통증 및 하지 저림에 대한 수치 평가 척도(NRS)로 평가되었습니다. [2] 환자 및 방법 총 1000명의 참가자가 CLBP 유무(+) 또는 미포함(-) CLBP의 5개 영역인 요통, 요추 기능, 보행 능력, 사회성을 평가하는 일본 정형외과 협회 요통 평가 설문지(JOABPEQ)에 응답했습니다. 삶의 기능과 정신 건강. [3]
Back Pain Evaluation 허리 통증 평가
The primary outcome measures were disability level including pain and quality of life (based on Japan Low back pain Evaluation Questionnaire; JLEQ), and JLEQ was measured repeatedly. [1] Postoperative patient-reported outcome measurement was performed using the Oswestry Disability Index, Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, and the visual analog scale. [2] Methods Patients with CLBP (N=471) received one of the four treatments and were evaluated, prospectively and comprehensively, once every month for six months using a visual analog scale (VAS) for LBP, the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, the JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), the EuroQol five-dimensions three-levels (EQ-5D-3L), and the Short Form-8 item health survey (SF-8). [3] At 48 weeks, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire pain-related disorder, walking ability, social life function, and lumbar function scores were significantly lower, while the visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain was higher in patients with subsequent fracture. [4] Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), numeric rating scale (NRS), and Macnab criteria (mean follow-up period, 28. [5] The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) was used for clinical assessment, and the scores were compared between groups. [6] The primary outcome measure was assessed using the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). [7] Patients' responses to Japan Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) and numerical rating scales (NRS) for lumbar pain, leg pain, and leg numbness were recorded before and during follow-up. [8] the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) was used to assess the HRQoLs. [9] The clinical outcomes were assessed using Japan Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ). [10] Clinical outcomes were measured before surgery and 6 months postoperatively using the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ); Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of low back pain, leg pain, and leg numbness; Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire; and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36). [11] Methods The Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) was used to assess the HRQoLs at baseline and at 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year postoperation. [12] All patients underwent neurological and functional evaluation before and after surgery according to the following: Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association back pain evaluation questionnaire. [13] Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF. [14] OBJECTIVE The main aim of this study was to evaluate the structural validity of the Brazilian version of the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). [15] The pre- and post-operative changes in the following were compared retrospectively between the two groups: surgical factors and clinical evaluations including JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ), visual analogue scale (VAS) on lower back pain, buttock/lower limb pain, and buttock/lower limb numbness, and Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RDQ). [16] The analyzed variables included global alignment, radiological parameters of fused segments, asymptomatic and symptomatic ASD incidence, clinical outcomes at 3 years postoperatively using the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire data, visual analogue scale scores for low back pain, lower extremity pain, and lower extremity numbness. [17] The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) score were evaluated to determine the extent of daily living activities. [18] Surgical outcomes were assessed using Oswestry disability index, visual analog scale (VAS; low back pain (LBP), lower-extremity pain, numbness, LBP in motion, in standing, and in sitting), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for intermittent claudication (JOA score), and Nakai's scoring system. [19] Clinical outcomes were evaluated by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). [20] The participants completed the following PROMs: the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ) for lumbar spinal diseases, and the JOA cervical myelopathy evaluation questionnaire (JOACMEQ) for cervical spinal diseases. [21] Furthermore, numeric rating scales, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) lumbar score and JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire were used for secondary outcome measures. [22] Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) and numeric rating scale (NRS) for low back pain, lower limb pain, and lower limb numbness. [23] Patients and methods A total of 1000 participants either with (+) or without (−) CLBP answered the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), which assesses five domains of CLBP: low back pain, lumbar function, walking ability, social life function and mental health. [24] Recent study reported that the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) is the most accurate outcome measurement to reflect patient satisfaction. [25] BACKGROUND No studies have evaluated the long-term outcomes following microendoscopic diskectomy for lumbar disk herniation (MEDH) and microendoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (MEDS) using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). [26] The neurologic functions were assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire. [27] Their clinical outcomes were assessed using the numerical rating scale and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) preoperatively and at 3 months and 1 year after surgery. [28] Clinical outcomes were measured using the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), a numerical rating scale (NRS) of back pain and leg pain, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) at baseline and at 6 weeks. [29] Each patient undertook three self-assessed health-related quality of life measures preoperatively and again at 2-years postoperatively: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 questionnaire, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ). [30] Outcome measures, including EQ-5D, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, the JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (BPEQ), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Medical Outcomes Study SF-8, and the visual analog scale, were investigated at baseline and every one month thereafter. [31] 8), a score of <60 for lumbar function in Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (OR = 2. [32] Secondary outcome measures included scores on the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), visual analog scale (VAS) for lower back pain, and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). [33] HRQOL items included the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). [34] Clinical symptoms were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Index, and visual analog scale (VAS). [35] We assessed the following clinical information: Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score; numerical rating scale (NRS) for low back pain (LBP), leg pain, and leg numbness; Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire; Roland- Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); and Short Form 8 (SF-8) as HRQOL. [36] BACKGROUND CONTEXT Introduced in 2007, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) has been widely used, but its psychometric properties have not been well studied. [37] The TL/L group showed significantly worse scores for walking ability and social function domains of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) (p < 0. [38] Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) dan Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) digunakan untuk menilai disabilitas dan skor fungsional pada pasien LFS. [39] Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, JOA-back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and 100-mm visual analog scale for low back pain. [40] The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) was used for the assessment of the clinical symptoms. [41] OUTCOME MEASURES Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ). [42] Assessments with instruments including the Oswestry Disability Index, the visual analog scale, and the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire will be performed at four time points to explore the difference of clinical efficacy between two groups. [43] BACKGROUND The reference values of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are still unknown. [44] Few studies regarding MED in terms of disease-specific quality of life measures using Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) have been published. [45] Operative time and the pre‐ to postsurgical change in pain and pain‐related disability scores (Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire scores) were evaluated. [46] We assessed clinical information; Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score; numerical rating scale (NRS) for low back pain, for leg pain, and for leg numbness; Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ); JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ); Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); and Short Form 8 (SF-8) as patient reported outcomes. [47]1차 결과 측정은 통증을 포함한 장애 정도와 삶의 질(일본 요통 평가 설문지; JLEQ 기준)이었고, JLEQ는 반복적으로 측정되었다. [1] 수술 후 환자 보고 결과 측정은 Oswestry 장애 지수, 일본 정형 외과 협회 요통 평가 설문지 및 시각적 아날로그 척도를 사용하여 수행되었습니다. [2] 방법 CLBP 환자(N=471)는 4가지 치료 중 하나를 받고 LBP에 대한 Visual analog scale(VAS), 일본 정형외과 협회(JOA) 점수, JOA 요통 평가 설문지(JOABPEQ), Roland-Morris 장애 설문지(RDQ), EuroQol 5차원 3단계(EQ-5D-3L) 및 Short Form-8 항목 건강 설문조사(SF-8). [3] nan [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7] nan [8] nan [9] nan [10] nan [11] nan [12] nan [13] nan [14] nan [15] nan [16] nan [17] nan [18] nan [19] nan [20] nan [21] nan [22] 임상 결과는 일본 정형외과 협회 요통 평가 설문지(JOABPEQ)와 요통, 하지 통증 및 하지 저림에 대한 수치 평가 척도(NRS)로 평가되었습니다. [23] 환자 및 방법 총 1000명의 참가자가 CLBP 유무(+) 또는 미포함(-) CLBP의 5개 영역인 요통, 요추 기능, 보행 능력, 사회성을 평가하는 일본 정형외과 협회 요통 평가 설문지(JOABPEQ)에 응답했습니다. 삶의 기능과 정신 건강. [24] 최근 연구에 따르면 일본 정형외과 협회 요통 평가 설문지(JOABPEQ)가 환자 만족도를 반영하는 가장 정확한 결과 측정이라고 보고했습니다. [25] nan [26] nan [27] 그들의 임상 결과는 수술 전과 수술 후 3개월 및 1년에 수치 평가 척도와 일본 정형외과 요통 평가 설문지(JOABPEQ)를 사용하여 평가되었습니다. [28] 임상 결과는 ZCQ(Zurich Claudication Questionnaire), 요통 및 다리 통증의 수치 평가 척도(NRS), 기준선 및 6주차에 일본 정형외과 협회 요통 평가 설문지(JOABPEQ)를 사용하여 측정되었습니다. [29] nan [30] nan [31] nan [32] nan [33] nan [34] nan [35] nan [36] nan [37] nan [38] nan [39] nan [40] nan [41] nan [42] nan [43] nan [44] nan [45] nan [46] nan [47]
Chest Pain Evaluation 흉통 평가
Coronary CTA is valuable in acute chest pain evaluation in the emergency department helping in better triage. [1] org/annals/ Official journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians (The print version of this article has been scheduled for June 2021) The Ambulance Cardiac Chest Pain Evaluation in Scotland Study (ACCESS): A Prospective Cohort Study Jamie G. [2] This column discusses what appears to be a lead reversal in a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) of a routine low-risk chest pain evaluation in a 36-year-old man. [3] Conclusions Wide variation persists in physician-level admission rates for emergency department chest pain evaluation, even in a well-integrated health system. [4] Methods: A secondary analysis from 3 randomized clinical trials involving ED patients with acute chest pain was performed to determine whether a care pathway, ACES (Accelerated Chest pain Evaluation with Stress imaging), reduces the racial disparity in index visit cardiac testing between African American (AA) and White patients. [5] The chest pain evaluation protocol (CPEP) was developed at our centre which. [6] Although there have been many clinical decision rules for chest pain evaluation, the HEART score (history, EGG, age, risk factors, troponin) has come to the forefront of emergency medicine practice, as it is the only model to be evaluated by multiple independent research groups in both validation and clinical impact studies and has outperformed alternate prediction models in comparison studies. [7] Four groups of ten age- and sex-matched subjects were retrospectively considered among patients referred for chest pain evaluation and submitted to high-dose Dipyridamole Echocardiographic-Scintigraphic combined test (DES). [8] Quantitative CAC scores were compared with an age- and gender-matched control cohort of patients chosen from an emergency department database of patients who received coronary CT angiography for chest pain evaluation. [9] RESULTS During the study period, 24,459 patients presented with a chest pain evaluation requiring troponin analysis and stress test ordering from the ED. [10] The use of cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to assess acute chest pain was adopted at the Chickasaw Nation Medical Center to attempt to accurately diagnose low to intermediate risk chest pain and potentially reduce the cost of chest pain evaluation to the system while still transferring appropriate high-risk patients. [11] Double right coronary artery (RCA) is a very rare coronary artery anomaly (few cases reported in the literature) that might be overlooked during left heart catheterization for chest pain evaluation or other diagnostic purposes. [12]관상 동맥 CTA는 더 나은 분류를 돕는 응급실의 급성 흉통 평가에 유용합니다. [1] org/annals/ American College of Emergency Physicians의 공식 저널 (이 기사의 인쇄 버전은 2021년 6월로 예정되어 있습니다) The Ambulance Cardiac Chest Pain Evaluation in Scotland Study (ACCESS): A Prospective Cohort Study Jamie G. [2] nan [3] nan [4] 방법: 급성 흉통이 있는 ED 환자를 대상으로 한 3건의 무작위 임상 시험에서 이차 분석을 수행하여 치료 경로인 ACES(Accelerated Chest pain Evaluation with Stress imaging)가 아프리카계 미국인( AA) 및 백인 환자. [5] 흉통 평가 프로토콜(CPEP)은 저희 센터에서 개발되었습니다. [6] nan [7] nan [8] nan [9] nan [10] nan [11] nan [12]