Cited by 113Anesthesia and Pain ManagementPediatric Pain Management TechniquesMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Predicting acute pain after cesarean delivery using three simple questions

Open access
Pan, Peter H., Tonidandel, Ashley M., Aschenbrenner, Carol A., Houle, Timothy T., Harris, Lynne C., Eisenach, James C.·2013·Anesthesiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interindividual variability in postoperative pain presents a clinical challenge. Preoperative quantitative sensory testing is useful but time consuming in predicting postoperative pain intensity. The current study was conducted to develop and validate a predictive model of acute postcesarean pain using a simple three-item preoperative questionnaire. METHODS: A total of 200 women scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under subarachnoid anesthesia were enrolled (192 subjects analyzed). Patients were asked to rate the intensity of loudness of audio tones, their level of anxiety and anticipated pain, and analgesic need from surgery. Postoperatively, patients reported the intensity of evoked pain. Regression analysis was performed to generate a predictive model for pain from these measures. A validation cohort of 151 women was enrolled to test the reliability of the model (131 subjects analyzed). RESULTS: Responses from each of the three preoperative questions correlated moderately with 24-h evoked pain intensity (r = 0.24-0.33, P < 0.001). Audio tone rating added uniquely, but minimally, to the model and was not included in the predictive model. The multiple regression analysis yielded a statistically significant model (R = 0.20, P < 0.001), whereas the validation cohort showed reliably a very similar regression line (R = 0.18). In predicting the upper 20th percentile of evoked pain scores, the optimal cut point was 46.9 (z =0.24) such that sensitivity of 0.68 and specificity of 0.67 were as balanced as possible. CONCLUSIONS: This simple three-item questionnaire is useful to help predict postcesarean evoked pain intensity, and could be applied to further research and clinical application to tailor analgesic therapy to those who need it most.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aln.0b013e31828e156f

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A single-question approach for assessing pain expectations has previously shown high predictive validity after cesarean delivery.

    “A single-question approach has previously shown high predictive validity after cesarean delivery [85].”

    From Pre- and post-operative psychological interventions to prevent pain and fatigue after breast cancer surgery (PREVENT): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as [85]

    The Abstract Results (page not available) report that each of the three preoperative questions correlated moderately with pain after cesarean delivery. The validated predictive model used all three questions, not a single question; the Discussion says it significantly improved on a single variable. The paper therefore does not support describing a single-question approach as having high predictive validity. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pan, P. H., Tonidandel, A. M., Aschenbrenner, C. A., Houle, T. T., Harris, L. C., & Eisenach, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Professor
  • Assistant Professor
  • Biostatistician
  • Associate Professor
  • Research Coordinator
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
Venue
Anesthesiology
Published
2013-05
Volume
118
Issue
5
Pages
1170-1179
ISSN
0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2033813026
Cited by
113
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Anesthesiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM048085, R37GM048085, GM 48085)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01RR007122)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
postoperative pain, cesarean section, pain prediction, pain anticipation, anxiety, analgesic requirement, spinal anesthesia, prediction model
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Anesthesia, Obstetrical, Anxiety, Cesarean Section, Female, Humans, Intraoperative Care, Postoperative Pain, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Preoperative Care, Regression Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Cohort Studies, Linear Models, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Acute Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review