Aim: To analyse various pain scales commonly used to determine the effect of different pain control methods during debonding of orthodontic brackets. Study Design. A comparative cross-sectional study performed on a sample of 60 patients (n = 60) including 14 males and 46 females who were ready for debonding and who were divided into three groups, i.e., finger pressure (FP), elastomeric wafer (EW), and stress relief (SR).
Materials and Methods: A 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to record the pain intensity for each tooth. Another scale known as Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was used to evaluate the patient's general attitude towards pain perception. The armamentarium and operator were kept same for all the patients. Statistical analysis used was the Kruskal-Wallis test, used for intergroup and intragroup comparison of pain scores.
Results: Lowest total pain score was recorded in the FP group (P=0.043) on intergroup comparison, while on intragroup comparison, higher pain scores were recorded in lower anterior region (P=0.02) in all three groups. There was no significant difference between the pain scores reported by the male and female subjects.
Conclusion: FP is an effective method of pain control. And teeth in the anterior region of lower and upper arches are more sensitive to pain. In terms of cognitive-affective constructs, although the VAS has been widely used in previous studies, the PCS has been detailed to show the most reliable association with physical discomfort and emotional distress.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted over a period of 18 months. A self-administered questionnaire assessing knowledge and perception regarding neonatal pain was used.
RESULTS: Twenty-four hospitals participated in the study, with 423 respondents. The response rate was 85%. One hundred and ninety-seven respondents (47%) were aware of tools for neonatal pain assessment, but only 6% used them in daily practice. Doctors with >4 years of experience in neonatal care had better awareness of available pain assessment tools (59.4% vs 40.9%, P = 0.001). Sixteen statements regarding knowledge were assessed. Mean score obtained was 10.5 ± 2.5. Consultants/specialists obtained a higher mean score than medical officers (11.9 vs 10.4, P < 0.001). More than 80% of respondents were able to discriminate painful from non-painful procedures.
CONCLUSION: Clinicians involved in neonatal care, especially those with longer experience were knowledgeable about neonatal pain. Gaps between knowledge and its application, however, remain. Implementation of clinical guidelines to improve the quality of assessment and adequate pain management in neonates is recommended.
METHODS: A parallel-group unblinded randomized controlled trial involving 300 patients was conducted in two hospital orthopedics clinics in Malaysia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive cognitive behavioral-based group therapy (n = 150) or no further intervention (n = 150). The primary outcome was the change from baseline in knee pain as determined by the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 6 months. The data collected were analyzed by covariate-adjusted mixed design repeated measures analysis of variance. All analyses were performed under the terms of intention-to-treat.
RESULTS: At 6 months, mean change from baseline in the KOOS knee pain score was 0.6 points (95% CI -1.73 to 2.94) in the control group and 8.9 points (95% CI 6.62 to 11.23) (denoting less knee pain intensity) in the intervention group (significant treatment effect p < 0.0001). Patients treated with such an approach also experienced significant improvement in functional ability when performing activities of daily living and had improved ability to cope with depression, anxiety and pain catastrophizing.
CONCLUSION: The intervention module delivered by healthcare professionals had a sustained effect on knee OA pain and functionality over 6 months, thereby leading to an overall improvement in psychological well-being, thus benefitting most of the Malaysian knee OA patients.
Methods: This cross-sectional observational study involved 465 adults prescribed analgesics for cancer-related pain from 22 sites across Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Pain intensity, pain control satisfaction, and adequacy of analgesics for pain control were documented using questionnaires.
Results: Most patients (84.4%) had stage III or IV cancer. On a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worse pain), patients' mean worst pain intensity over 24 hours was 4.76 (SD 2.47). More physicians (19.0%) than patients (8.0%) reported dissatisfaction with patient's pain control. Concordance of patient-physician satisfaction was low (weighted kappa 0.36; 95% CI 0.03-0.24). Most physicians (71.2%) found analgesics to be adequate for pain control. Patients' and physicians' satisfaction with pain control and physician-assessed analgesic adequacy were significantly different across countries (P < 0.001 for all).
Conclusions: Despite pain-related problems with sleep and quality of life, patients were generally satisfied with their pain control status. Interestingly, physicians were more likely to be dissatisfied with patients' pain control. Enhanced patient-physician communication, physicians' proactivity in managing opioid-induced adverse effects, and accessibility of analgesics have been identified to be crucial for successful cancer pain management. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02664987).
METHODS: The search strategies were performed via EBSCO MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL, Science Direct, PubMed, and PEDro databases from 2006 to 2016. The keywords "patient education", "low back pain", "elderly", "older adults", "older persons" and "older people" were used during the literature search. Boolean operators were used to expand or limit the searching scope and manual exclusion was performed to choose articles eligible for this study.
RESULTS: A total of 2799 articles were retrieved but only five articles were related with patient education for older people with LBP. Findings suggest that patient education for older people may differ in terms of its contents such as health education, self-management, video education, and postural education. The high methodological quality of the studies revealed that patient education showed improvement in terms of pain, disability and quality of life among older people with LBP.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient education improved pain and had positive effects on disability and quality of life among older people with LBP. However, due to the limited number of RCTs more studies are needed to provide evidence for its effectiveness.
METHOD: A randomized controlled open-label study was performed at the cardiothoracic intensive care unit of Penang Hospital, Malaysia. A total of 28 patients who underwent cardiac surgeries were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine or morphine. Both groups were similar in terms of preoperative baseline characteristics. Efficacy measures included sedation scores and pain intensity and requirements for additional sedative/analgesic. Mean heart rate and arterial blood pressure were used as safety measures. Other measures were additional inotropes, extubation time and other concurrent medications.
RESULTS: The mean dose of dexmedetomidine infused was 0.12 [SD 0.03] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹, while that of morphine was 13.2 [SD 5.84] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹. Dexmedetomidine group showed more benefits in sedation and pain levels, additional sedative/analgesic requirements, and extubation time. No significant differences between the two groups for the outcome measures, except heart rate, which was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that dexmedetomidine was at least comparable to morphine in terms of efficacy and safety among cardiac surgery patients. Further studies with larger samples are recommended in order to determine the significant effects of the outcome measures.
Patients and methods: This single-blind, prospective, randomized-controlled study included a total of 20 patients (8 males, 12 females; mean age: 53.5±13.8; range, 31 to 82 years) with chronic neuropathic pain between January 2014 and June 2014. The patients were randomized to BEST (n=10) or placebo (n=10) group. Pain was measured using the Visual Analog Scale, and serum cortisol levels were measured before and after treatment.
Results: There was no significant difference in the baseline demographics, diagnosis, and treatment modalities between the groups. Approximately 50% patients in the treatment group reported that the treatment was effective, compared to 30% in the placebo group. Pain score reduction after treatment in the BEST group was significant (p<0.05), while it was not significant in the placebo group (p=0.4). Cortisol levels significantly reduced only in the BEST group after treatment (p=0.013).
Conclusion: The BEST yields reduction in pain severity and cortisol levels. Based on these results, it seems to be effective in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain after a single treatment and may be more effective for long-term management.