Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Häufige urologisch-sexualmedizinische Themen in der Praxis sind das Thema des MMW-Webinars am 5. Juni von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. Konkret geht es um die Frage, wann bei Harnwegsinfektionen auf Antibiotika verzichtet werden kann, und um ein Update zur Therapie von Libido- und Potenzstörungen des Mannes. Der dritte Vortrag behandelt sexuell übertragbare Krankheiten. Stellen Sie Ihre Fragen an die Experten und sammeln Sie 2 CME-Punkte. Jetzt gleich anmelden!
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Current Pain and Headache Reports
Erschienen in: Current Pain and Headache Reports 1/2024

07.12.2023 | Chronic Pain Medicine (A Abd-Elsayed, Section Editor)

Pain Scales: What Are They and What Do They Mean

verfasst von: Christopher L. Robinson, Anh Phung, Moises Dominguez, Edgar Remotti, Ryan Ricciardelli, D. Uju Momah, Stephanie Wahab, Rosa S. Kim, Malcolm Norman, Evan Zhang, Jamal Hasoon, Vwaire Orhurh, Omar Viswanath, Cyrus Yazdi, Grant H. Chen, Thomas T. Simopoulos, Jatinder Gill

Erschienen in: Current Pain and Headache Reports | Ausgabe 1/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

It is essential to have validated and reliable pain measurement tools that cover a wide range of areas and are tailored to individual patients to ensure effective pain management. The main objective of this review is to provide comprehensive information on commonly used pain scales and questionnaires, including their usefulness, intended purpose, applicability to different patient populations, and associated advantages and disadvantages.

Recent Findings

Acute pain questionnaires typically focus on measuring the severity of pain and the extent of relief achieved through interventions. Chronic pain questionnaires evaluate additional aspects such as pain-related functional limitations, psychological distress, and psychological well-being. The selection of an appropriate pain scale depends on the specific assessment objectives. Additionally, each pain scale has its strengths and limitations. Understanding the differences among these pain scales is essential for selecting the most appropriate tool tailored to individual patient needs in different settings.

Conclusion

Medical professionals encounter challenges in accurately assessing pain. Physicians must be familiar with the different pain scales and their applicability to specific patient population.
Literatur
1.
2.
Turk DC, Okifuji A. Psychological factors in chronic pain: evolution and revolution. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002;70:678–90.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Creamer P, Hochberg MC. Why does osteoarthritis of the knee hurt--sometimes? Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36:726–8.PubMedCrossRef
4.
5.
Rabin R, De Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–43.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Longworth L, et al. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:1–224.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
8.
Schwenkglenks M, Matter-Walstra K. Is the EQ-5D suitable for use in oncology? An overview of the literature and recent developments. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16:207–19.PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Janssen MF, Buchholz I. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:647–73.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Stucki G, et al. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21:796–803.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Abou-Al-Shaar H, Adogwa O, Mehta AI. Lumbar spinal stenosis: objective measurement scales and ambulatory status. Asian Spine J. 2018;12:765–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Hara N, et al. Psychometric assessment of the Japanese version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ): reliability and validity. PLoS One. 2016;11
14.
Tomkins CC, Battié MC, Hu R. Construct validity of the physical function scale of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire for the measurement of walking capacity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1896–901.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Azimi P, et al. Severity of symptoms, physical functioning and satisfaction in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a validation study of the Iranian version of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Score. J Neurosurg Sci. 2014;58:177–82.PubMed
16.
Fukushima M, et al. Evaluation of the minimum clinically important differences of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33:E499–503.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Bouknaitir JB, Carreon LY, Brorson S, Andersen MØ. Translation and validation of the Danish Version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Global Spine J. 2022;12:53–60.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Comer CM, Conaghan PG, Tennant A. Internal construct validity of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire: Rasch analysis of a disease-specific outcome measure for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:1969–76.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kreiner DS, et al. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update). Spine J. 2013;13:734–43.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Pratt RK, Fairbank JCT, Virr A. The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:84–91.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Lovejoy TI, Turk DC, Morasco BJ. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the revised short-form McGill pain questionnaire. J Pain. 2012;13:1250–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Burckhardt CS, Jones KD. Adult measures of pain: The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain Scale (RAPS), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Verbal Descriptive Scale (VDS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and West Haven-Yale Multidisciplinary Pain Inventory (WHYMPI). Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49:S96–104.CrossRef
23.
Williams DA, Arnold LM. Measures of fibromyalgia: Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale, and Multiple Ability Self-Report Questionnaire (MASQ). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(Suppl 11).
24.
Melzack R. The McGill pain questionnaire: from description to measurement. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:199–202.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Mendoza TR, et al. The utility and validity of the modified brief pain inventory in a multiple-dose postoperative analgesic trial. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:357–62.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Cleeland, C. S. The Brief Pain Inventory User Guide. 2009.
27.
Majedi H, et al. Validation of the Persian version of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-P) in chronic pain patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;54:132-138.e2.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Im DD, Jambaulikar GD, Kikut A, Gale J, Weiner SG. Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form: a new method for assessing pain in the emergency department. Pain Med. 2020;21:3263–9.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Dudgeon D, Raubertas RF, Rosenthal SN. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire in chronic cancer pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1993;8:191–5.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Ngamkham S, et al. The McGill Pain Questionnaire as a multidimensional measure in people with cancer: an integrative review. Pain Manag Nurs. 2012;13:27–51.PubMedCrossRef
31.
• Garg A, Pathak H, Churyukanov MV, Uppin RB, Slobodin TM. Low back pain: critical assessment of various scales. Eur Spine J. 2020;29:503–18. An evaluation of pain assessment tools for low back pain based on psychometric properties and ease of use.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Gauthier LR, et al. Validation of the short-form McGill pain questionnaire-2 in younger and older people with cancer pain. J Pain. 2014;15:756–70.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Stanhope J. Brief Pain Inventory review. Occup Med (Chic Ill). 2016;66:496–7.CrossRef
34.
Vernon H. The Neck Disability Index: state-of-the-art, 1991-2008. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31:491–502.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Pietrobon R, Coeytaux RR, Carey TS, Richardson WJ, DeVellis RF. Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain or dysfunction: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:515–22.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Saltychev M, Mattie R, McCormick Z, Laimi K. Psychometric properties of the neck disability index amongst patients with chronic neck pain using item response theory. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40:2116–21.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Thorp J, Willson J. The Neck Disability Index is not correlated with some parameters of temporomandibular disorders: a cross-sectional study. J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2019;33:39–46.PubMedCrossRef
38.
• Khan I, et al. Does Neck Disability Index correlate with 12-month satisfaction after elective surgery for cervical radiculopathy? Results from a National Spine Registry. Neurosurgery. 2020;86:736–41. Recent study to determine the association of baseline and 12-mo Neck Disability Index (NDI) with patient satisfaction after elective surgery for DCR.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Smeets R, Köke A, Lin CW, Ferreira M, Demoulin C. Measures of function in low back pain/disorders: Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(Suppl 11).
40.
Brodke DS, et al. Oswestry Disability Index: a psychometric analysis with 1,610 patients. Spine J. 2017;17:321–7.PubMedCrossRef
41.
42.
Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002;82:8–24.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Clark P, Lavielle P, Martinez H, et al. Learning from pain scales: patient perspective. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:1584–8.PubMed
44.
Gracely RH, McGrath P, Dubner R. Ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors. Pain (Amsterdam). 1978;5:5–18.
45.
Herr KA, Spratt K, Mobily PR, Richardson G. Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:207–19.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Hjermstad MJ, et al. Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;41:1073–93.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Lasheen W, Walsh D, Hauser K, Gutgsell T, Karafa MT. Symptom variability during repeated measurement among hospice patients with advanced cancer. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2009;26:368–75.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Loos MJA, Houterman S, Scheltinga MRM, Roumen RMH. Evaluating postherniorrhaphy groin pain: Visual Analogue or Verbal Rating Scale? Hernia. 2008;12:147–51.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Lund I, Lundeberg T, Sandberg L, et al. Lack of interchangeability between visual analogue and verbal rating pain scales: a cross sectional description of pain etiology groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Pesonen A, Suojaranta-Ylinen R, Tarkkila P, Rosenberg PH. Applicability of tools to assess pain in elderly patients after cardiac surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008;52:267–73.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Peters ML, Patijn J, Lame I. Pain assessment in younger and older pain patients: psychometric properties and patient preference of five commonly used measures of pain intensity. Pain Med. 2007;8:601–10.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Briggs M, Closs JS. A Descriptive Study of the Use of Visual Analogue Scales and Verbal Rating Scales for the Assessment of Postoperative Pain in Orthopedic Patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999;18.
53.
Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14:798–804.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Ware JE, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:903–12.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Russell IT. SF 36 health survey questionnaire: II. Responsiveness to changes in health status in four common clinical conditions. Qual Health Care. 1994;3:186–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247–63.PubMedCrossRef
57.
McHorney CA, Ware JE, Rachel Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994;32:40–66.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L. Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ. 1993;306:1437–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K. Can the sickness impact profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:429–38.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28:632–42.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992;30:917–25.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:171–8.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Deyo RA, Inui TS, Wood R, Clinical J, Program S. Toward clinical applications of health status measures: sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes. Health Serv Res. 1984;19:275.PubMedPubMedCentral
65.
Busija L, et al. Adult measures of general health and health-related quality of life. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020;72(Suppl 10):522–64.PubMedCrossRef
66.
White MK, McCausland KL, Sanchorawala V, Guthrie SD, Bayliss MS. Psychometric validation of the SF-36 Health Survey in light chain amyloidosis: results from community-based and clinic-based samples. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2017;8:157–67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Hicks GE, Manal TJ. Psychometric properties of commonly used low back disability questionnaires: are they useful for older adults with low back pain? Pain Med. 2009;10:85–94.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Chiarotto A, et al. Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index: which has better measurement properties for measuring physical functioning in nonspecific low back pain? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther. 2016;96:1620–37.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Riddle DL, Lee KT, Stratford PW. Use of SF-36 and SF-12 health status measures: a quantitative comparison for groups versus individual patients. Med Care. 2001;39:867–78.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Jakobsson U, Westergren A, Lindskov S, Hagell P. Construct validity of the SF-12 in three different samples. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:560–6.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Lee PH, Wong FKY, Wang SL, Chow SKY. Substitution of SF-36 by SF-12 among Hong Kong Chinese Older Adults: Secondary Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Int J Behav Med. 2016;23:635–44.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Lam ETP, Lam CLK, Fong DYT, Huang WW. Is the SF-12 version 2 Health Survey a valid and equivalent substitute for the SF-36 version 2 Health Survey for the Chinese? J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19:200–8.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Failde I, Medina P, Ramirez C, Arana R. Construct and criterion validity of the SF-12 health questionnaire in patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16:569–73.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Tucker G, Adams R, Wilson D. Results from several population studies show that recommended scoring methods of the SF-36 and the SF-12 may lead to incorrect conclusions and subsequent health decisions. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:2195–203.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Østhus TBH, et al. Mortality and health-related quality of life in prevalent dialysis patients: comparison between 12-items and 36-items short-form health survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:1–9.CrossRef
77.
Lacson E, et al. A comparison of SF-36 and SF-12 composite scores and subsequent hospitalization and mortality risks in long-term dialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5:252–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
78.
Dempster M, Donnelly M. A Comparative analysis of the SF-12 and the SF-36 among ischaemic heart disease patients. J Health Psychol. 2001;6:707–11.PubMedCrossRef
79.
Müller-Nordhorn J, Roll S, Willich SN. Comparison of the short form (SF)-12 health status instrument with the SF-36 in patients with coronary heart disease. Heart. 2004;90:523.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
80.
81.
Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3115–24.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Stevens ML, Lin CCW, Maher CG. The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. J Physiother. 2016;62:116.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Atlas SJ, et al. Long-term disability and return to work among patients who have a herniated lumbar disc: the effect of disability compensation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:4–15.PubMedCrossRef
84.
Yamato TP, Maher CG, Saragiotto BT, Catley MJ, McAuley JH. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: one or more dimensions? Eur Spine J. 2017;26:301–8.PubMedCrossRef
85.
Kopec JA, Esdaile JM. Functional disability scales for back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:1943–9.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Macedo LG, et al. Responsiveness of the 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:458.PubMedCrossRef
87.
Hiyama A, et al. Effect of depression and neuropathic pain using questionnaires on quality of life in patients with low back pain; cross-sectional retrospective study. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:2750–60.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Stratford PW, et al. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris Questionnaire. Phys Ther. 1996;76:359–65.PubMedCrossRef
89.
Bijur PE, Latimer CT, Gallagher EJ. Validation of a verbally administered numerical rating scale of acute pain for use in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10:390–2.PubMedCrossRef
90.
Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(Suppl 11).
91.
von Baeyer CL. Numerical rating scale for self-report of pain intensity in children and adolescents: recent progress and further questions. Eur J Pain. 2009;13:1005–7.CrossRef
92.
Castarlenas E, Jensen MP, Von Baeyer CL, Miró J. Psychometric properties of the Numerical Rating Scale to assess self-reported pain intensity in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Clin J Pain. 2017;33:376–83.PubMedCrossRef
93.
94.
Callahan LF, Brooks RH, Summey JA, Pincus T. Quantitative pain assessment for routine care of rheumatoid arthritis patients, using a pain scale based on activities of daily living and a visual analog pain scale. Arthritis Rheum. 1987;30:630–6.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Collins SL, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres? Pain. 1997;72:95–7.PubMedCrossRef
96.
97.
Jacobson CJ, et al. Qualitative evaluation of pediatric pain behavior, quality, and intensity item candidates and the PROMIS pain domain framework in children with chronic pain. J Pain. 2015;16:1243–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
98.
Salo D, et al. Can patients accurately read a Visual Analog Pain Scale? Am J Emerg Med. 2003;21:515–9.PubMedCrossRef
99.
100.
Askew RL, Cook KF, Revicki DA, Cella D, Amtmann D. Evidence from diverse clinical populations supported clinical validity of PROMIS pain interference and pain behavior. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:103–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
101.
Kean J, et al. Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Forms, Brief Pain Inventory, PEG, and SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale. Med Care. 2016;54:414–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
102.
Kendall R, et al. The relationship of PROMIS Pain Interference and Physical Function Scales. Pain Med: Off J Am Acad Pain Med. 2018;19:1720.CrossRef
103.
Bernstein DN, et al. PROMIS Pain Interference is superior vs Numeric Pain Rating Scale for pain assessment in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2019;40:139–44.PubMedCrossRef
104.
Chen CX, et al. Estimating minimally important differences for the PROMIS pain interference scales: results from 3 randomized clinical trials. Pain. 2018;159:775–82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Pain Scales: What Are They and What Do They Mean
verfasst von
Christopher L. Robinson
Anh Phung
Moises Dominguez
Edgar Remotti
Ryan Ricciardelli
D. Uju Momah
Stephanie Wahab
Rosa S. Kim
Malcolm Norman
Evan Zhang
Jamal Hasoon
Vwaire Orhurh
Omar Viswanath
Cyrus Yazdi
Grant H. Chen
Thomas T. Simopoulos
Jatinder Gill
Publikationsdatum
07.12.2023
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Current Pain and Headache Reports / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 1531-3433
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-3081
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-023-01195-2

Neu im Fachgebiet AINS

Mit dem Seitenschneider gegen das Reißverschluss-Malheur

03.06.2024 Urologische Notfallmedizin Nachrichten

Wer ihn je erlebt hat, wird ihn nicht vergessen: den Schmerz, den die beim Öffnen oder Schließen des Reißverschlusses am Hosenschlitz eingeklemmte Haut am Penis oder Skrotum verursacht. Eine neue Methode für rasche Abhilfe hat ein US-Team getestet.

Blutdrucksenkung schon im Rettungswagen bei akutem Schlaganfall?

31.05.2024 Apoplex Nachrichten

Der optimale Ansatz für die Blutdruckkontrolle bei Patientinnen und Patienten mit akutem Schlaganfall ist noch nicht gefunden. Ob sich eine frühzeitige Therapie der Hypertonie noch während des Transports in die Klinik lohnt, hat jetzt eine Studie aus China untersucht.

Ähnliche Überlebensraten nach Reanimation während des Transports bzw. vor Ort

29.05.2024 Reanimation im Kindesalter Nachrichten

Laut einer Studie aus den USA und Kanada scheint es bei der Reanimation von Kindern außerhalb einer Klinik keinen Unterschied für das Überleben zu machen, ob die Wiederbelebungsmaßnahmen während des Transports in die Klinik stattfinden oder vor Ort ausgeführt werden. Jedoch gibt es dabei einige Einschränkungen und eine wichtige Ausnahme.

Nicht Creutzfeldt Jakob, sondern Abführtee-Vergiftung

29.05.2024 Hyponatriämie Nachrichten

Eine ältere Frau trinkt regelmäßig Sennesblättertee gegen ihre Verstopfung. Der scheint plötzlich gut zu wirken. Auf Durchfall und Erbrechen folgt allerdings eine Hyponatriämie. Nach deren Korrektur kommt es plötzlich zu progredienten Kognitions- und Verhaltensstörungen.

Update AINS

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

hier abonnieren
Bildnachweise