For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
Inviting an author to review:
Peri-implant health and disease. A systematic review of current epidemiology.
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
24
views
Article has an altmetric score of 12
70
references
 Top references
cited by
8
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      63
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals: A systematic review using the COSMIN checklist

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This systematic review aimed to investigate the measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals. According to the PRISMA guidelines, a registered report protocol was previously published in this journal. Studies reporting the development and validation of acute and chronic pain scoring instruments based on behavioral and/or facial expressions of farm animals were searched. Data extraction and assessment were performed individually by two investigators using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Nine categories were assessed: two for scale development (general design requirements and development, and content validity and comprehensibility) and seven for measurement properties (internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, criterion and construct validity, responsiveness and cross-cultural validity). The overall strength of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low) of each instrument was scored based on methodological quality, number of studies and studies’ findings. Twenty instruments for three species (bovine, ovine and swine) were included. There was considerable variability concerning their development and measurement properties. Three behavior-based instruments scored high for strength of evidence: UCAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Unidimensional Composite Pain Scale for assessing postoperative pain in cattle), USAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Sheep Acute Composite Pain Scale) and UPAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Pig Composite Acute Pain Scale). Four instruments scored moderate for strength of evidence: MPSS (Multidimensional Pain Scoring System for bovine), SPFES (Sheep Pain Facial Expression Scale), LGS (Lamb Grimace Scale) and PGS-B (Piglet Grimace Scale-B). Most instruments (n = 13) scored low or very low for final overall evidence. Construct validity was the most reported measurement property followed by criterion validity and reliability. Instruments with reported validation are urgently required for pain assessment of buffalos, goats, camelids and avian species.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

          C. A. C. Prinsen, L. Mokkink, L Bouter … (2018)
          Purpose Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Results A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1–4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5–8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review. Conclusions The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.
          Article 0 comments Cited 926 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
          Article has an altmetric score of 54
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.

            P. Shrout, J. L. Fleiss (1979)
            Reliability coefficients often take the form of intraclass correlation coefficients. In this article, guidelines are given for choosing among six different forms of the intraclass correlation for reliability studies in which n target are rated by k judges. Relevant to the choice of the coefficient are the appropriate statistical model for the reliability and the application to be made of the reliability results. Confidence intervals for each of the forms are reviewed.
            Article 0 comments Cited 810 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Article has an altmetric score of 47
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study

              Lidwine Mokkink, Caroline Terwee, Donald L Patrick … (2010)
              Background Aim of the COSMIN study (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was to develop a consensus-based checklist to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. We present the COSMIN checklist and the agreement of the panel on the items of the checklist. Methods A four-round Delphi study was performed with international experts (psychologists, epidemiologists, statisticians and clinicians). Of the 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate (63%). Panel members were asked to rate their (dis)agreement with each proposal on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel members indicated ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. Results Consensus was reached on the inclusion of the following measurement properties: internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity (including face validity), construct validity (including structural validity, hypotheses testing and cross-cultural validity), criterion validity, responsiveness, and interpretability. The latter was not considered a measurement property. The panel also reached consensus on how these properties should be assessed. Conclusions The resulting COSMIN checklist could be useful when selecting a measurement instrument, peer-reviewing a manuscript, designing or reporting a study on measurement properties, or for educational purposes.
              Article 0 comments Cited 780 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Article has an altmetric score of 55
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Rubia Mitalli Tomacheuski: Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draft
                Beatriz Paglerani Monteiro:
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5722-5687
                Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Marina Cayetano Evangelista: Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Stelio Pacca Loureiro Luna: Role: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Paulo Vinícius Steagall:
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4150-6043
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Ali Montazeri: Role: Editor
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS One
                Journal ID (publisher-id): plos
                Title: PLOS ONE
                Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1932-6203
                Publication date (Electronic): 20 January 2023
                Publication date Collection: 2023
                Volume: 18
                Issue: 1
                Electronic Location Identifier: e0280830
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical School (FMB) of São Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
                [2 ] Département de sciences cliniques, Faculté de médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
                [3 ] Department of Veterinary Surgery and Animal Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
                [4 ] Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences and Centre for Companion Animal Health and Welfare, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
                Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5722-5687
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4150-6043
                Article
                Publisher ID: PONE-D-22-02200
                DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280830
                PMC ID: 9858734
                PubMed ID: 36662813
                SO-VID: f943595f-e3f3-4796-8c33-88872586a3d1
                Copyright © © 2023 Tomacheuski et al
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                Date received : 24 January 2022
                Date accepted : 6 January 2023
                Related
                Measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals: A systematic review protocol using the COSMIN checklist
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 6, Pages: 25
                Funding
                Funded by: FAPESP
                Award ID: 2017/12815-0
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002322, Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior;
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000038, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada;
                Award ID: RGPIN-2018-03831
                Award Recipient :
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4150-6043
                FAPESP (2017/12815-0; Recipient Stelio Pacca Loureiro Luna), Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES; recipient Rubia Mitalli Tomacheuski), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC; RGPIN-2018-03831). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article
                Subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
                Subject: Clinical Medicine
                Subject: Signs and Symptoms
                Subject: Pain
                Subject: Engineering and Technology
                Subject: Measurement
                Subject: Biology and Life Sciences
                Subject: Organisms
                Subject: Eukaryota
                Subject: Animals
                Subject: Vertebrates
                Subject: Amniotes
                Subject: Mammals
                Subject: Swine
                Subject: Biology and Life Sciences
                Subject: Zoology
                Subject: Animals
                Subject: Vertebrates
                Subject: Amniotes
                Subject: Mammals
                Subject: Swine
                Subject: Biology and Life Sciences
                Subject: Psychology
                Subject: Behavior
                Subject: Nonverbal Communication
                Subject: Facial Expressions
                Subject: Social Sciences
                Subject: Psychology
                Subject: Behavior
                Subject: Nonverbal Communication
                Subject: Facial Expressions
                Subject: Social Sciences
                Subject: Sociology
                Subject: Culture
                Subject: Cross-Cultural Studies
                Subject: Research and Analysis Methods
                Subject: Research Assessment
                Subject: Systematic Reviews
                Subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
                Subject: Clinical Medicine
                Subject: Signs and Symptoms
                Subject: Pain
                Subject: Abdominal Pain
                Subject: Medicine and health sciences
                Subject: Pharmacology
                Subject: Drugs
                Subject: Analgesics
                Subject: NSAIDs
                Subject: Medicine and health sciences
                Subject: Pain management
                Subject: Analgesics
                Subject: NSAIDs
                Custom metadata
                Data Availability All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Uncategorized
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content63

                See all similar

                Cited by8

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors731

                See all reference authors