Cited by 41Pain Management and Opioid UseEmergency and Acute Care StudiesAnesthesia and Pain Management

Measurement of Acute Pelvic Pain Intensity in Gynecology: A Comparison of Five Methods

Fauconnier, Arnaud, Dallongeville, Elsa, Huchon, Cyrille, Ville, Yves, Falissard, Bruno·2009·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objective To compare different methods for measuring pelvic pain intensity in a gynecologic emergency unit. Methods A total of 177 consecutive female patients, with or without pain, consulting in a gynecologic emergency unit, underwent initial pain evaluation. We used three self-report pain intensity scales: visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, and verbal rating scale, and two nonverbal structured behavioral indices (BI-1, first behavioral index, BI-2 second behavioral index). Diagnosis and treatment took place in routine manner. Results The five scales were unidimensional according to principal component analysis (Cronbach's alpha coefficient=0.89). Missing data rates were greater for the two behavioral scales than for the self-report scales (n=177; 6.2% for BI-1 and 12.4% for BI-2). Patients had lower scores with the behavioral scales than with the self-report ones. Variations of pain intensity according to the pain physiology or the pain location were similar whatever the method of measurement used. The five methods were all sensitive to the physiology of the pain, the location and the severity of the illness, and pain as a main complaint. None of the methods used was affected by age, occupational categories, parity, or geographical origins. Conclusion All methods adequately measured the pelvic pain intensity in gynecologic emergencies. The self-report scales were easier to use than the behavioral indices. Self-report measurements of pelvic pain intensity provide use…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aog.0b013e318195bd6c

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fauconnier, A., Dallongeville, E., Huchon, C., Ville, Y., & Falissard, B.
Affiliations
Inserm (FR)
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2009-02
Volume
113
Issue
2, Part 1
Pages
260-269
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1963538125
Cited by
41
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
pelvic pain, pain intensity assessment, gynecologic emergencies, self-report pain scales, visual analogue scale, numerical rating scale, verbal rating scale, pain physiology, pain localization, triage, emergency department
MeSH terms
Adult, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Pain Measurement, Prospective Studies, Pelvic Pain, Young Adult

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