↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Development and performance of a diagnostic/prognostic scoring system for breakthrough pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Development and performance of a diagnostic/prognostic scoring system for breakthrough pain
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s126132
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boaz Gedaliahu Samolsky Dekel, Marco Palma, Maria Cristina Sorella, Alberto Gori, Alessio Vasarri, Rita Maria Melotti

Abstract

Variable prevalence and treatment of breakthrough pain (BTP) in different clinical contexts are partially due to the lack of reliable/validated diagnostic tools with prognostic capability. We report the statistical basis and performance analysis of a novel BTP scoring system based on the naïve Bayes classifier (NBC) approach and an 11-item IQ-BTP validated questionnaire. This system aims at classifying potential BTP presence in three likelihood classes: "High," "Intermediate," and "Low." Out of a training set of n=120 mixed chronic pain patients, predictors associated with the BTP likelihood variables (Pearson's χ(2) and/or Fisher's exact test) were employed for the NBC planning. Adjusting the binary classification to a three-likelihood classes case enabled the building of a scoring algorithm and to retrieve the score of each predictor's answer options and the Patient's Global Score (PGS). The latter medians were used to establish the NBC thresholds, needed to evaluate the scoring system performance (leave-one-out cross-validation). Medians of PGS in the "High," "Intermediate," and "Low" likelihood classes were 3.44, 1.53, and -2.84, respectively. Leading predictors for the model (based on score differences) were flair frequency (ΔS=1.31), duration (ΔS=5.25), and predictability (ΔS=1.17). Percentages of correct classification were 63.6% for the "High" and of 100.0% for either the "Intermediate" and "Low" likelihood classes; overall accuracy of the scoring system was 90.9%. The NBC-based BTP scoring system showed satisfactory performance in classifying potential BTP in three likelihood classes. The reliability, flexibility, and simplicity of this statistical approach may have significant relevance for BTP epidemiology and management. These results need further impact studies to generalize our findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Engineering 3 14%
Computer Science 2 10%
Neuroscience 2 10%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,466,074
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,160
of 1,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,787
of 310,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#46
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.