Conectar
To translate and validate the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool.
Timely assessment of the pain degree of nonverbal intensive care unit (ICU) patients can provide humanistic care. However, there is a lack of pain assessment tools that can meet the needs of patients who cannot use language in ICUs in China.
A cross-sectional survey.
We conducted forward–backward translation of the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool. A total of 300 critically ill patients in the intensive care unit who could not communicate verbally completed the Chinese version of the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to verify structural validity, and content validity and reliability analyses were also conducted.
The Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.901) and interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.981), with good split-half reliability. Content validity was established through acceptable item-level content validity index and scale-level content validity index scores. Exploratory factor analysis showed a single factor explaining 71.79% of total variance, and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed good model fit. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was 0.917 between the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. The Chinese Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool demonstrated significant differences in scores between different states of consciousness and illness severity, supporting its known-groups validity.
The Chinese version of the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool is a reliable and valid tool for nonverbal pain assessment in ICU patients in China.
The Chinese version of the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool can assess the pain of patients who cannot use language in ICU, which provides a new valuable assessment tool for Chinese clinicians and nurses in pain assessment and management.
Our study followed the STROBE Checklists.
Patients actively cooperated and participated in data collection during the implementation of the study.
Operative site wound infection is one of the most frequent infections in surgery. A variety of studies have shown that the results of laparoscopy might be superior to those of an open procedure. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of clarity as to whether there is a difference between open and laparoscopy with respect to the occurrence of wound infections in different paediatric operations. In this review, we looked at randomized, controlled studies that directly measured the rate of wound infection following an appendectomy with a laparoscope. We looked up four main databases for randomized, controlled studies that compare the treatment of paediatric appendicitis with laparoscopy. The surgeries included appendectomy. Through our search, we have determined 323 related papers and selected five qualified ones to be analysed according to the eligibility criteria. Five trials were also assessed for the quality of the documents. In the 5 trials, there were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of post-operative wound infection among the paediatric appendectomy and the open-access group (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34–1.15, p = 0.13). The four trials did not show any statistically significant difference in abdominal abscesses among the laparoscopic and open-access treatment groups (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.90–3.01, p = 0.11). The four trials did not reveal any statistically significant difference in operating time (mean difference, −4.36; 95% CI, −17.31 to 8.59, p = 0.51). In light of these findings, the use of laparoscopy as compared with the open-approach approach in paediatric appendectomies is not associated with a reduction in the risk of wound infection.
FreshRSS 