BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28882914)

  • 1. Procedural Pain Scale Evaluation (PROPoSE) study: protocol for an evaluation of the psychometric properties of behavioural pain scales for the assessment of procedural pain in infants and children aged 6-42 months.
    Crellin DJ; Harrison D; Hutchinson A; Schuster T; Santamaria N; Babl FE
    BMJ Open; 2017 Sep; 7(9):e016225. PubMed ID: 28882914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Psychometric Properties of the FLACC Scale Used to Assess Procedural Pain.
    Crellin DJ; Harrison D; Santamaria N; Huque H; Babl FE
    J Pain; 2018 Aug; 19(8):862-872. PubMed ID: 29551662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The Psychometric Properties of the MBPS Scale Used to Assess Procedural Pain.
    Crellin DJ; Babl FE; Santamaria N; Harrison D
    J Pain; 2018 Jun; 19(6):660-669. PubMed ID: 29454046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of the FLACC Scale, the MBPS and the Observer Applied Visual Analogue Scale Used to Assess Procedural Pain.
    Crellin D; Harrison D; Santamaria N; Babl FE
    J Pain Res; 2021; 14():881-892. PubMed ID: 33833566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Psychometric Properties of the Visual Analogue Scale Applied by an Observer to Assess Procedural Pain in Infants and Young Children: An Observational Study.
    Crellin DJ; Harrison D; Santamaria N; Huque H; Babl FE
    J Pediatr Nurs; 2021; 59():89-95. PubMed ID: 33561663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Establishing intra- and inter-rater agreement of the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale for evaluating pain in toddlers during immunization.
    Gomez RJ; Barrowman N; Elia S; Manias E; Royle J; Harrison D
    Pain Res Manag; 2013; 18(6):e124-8. PubMed ID: 24308028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Systematic review of the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability scale for assessing pain in infants and children: is it reliable, valid, and feasible for use?
    Crellin DJ; Harrison D; Santamaria N; Babl FE
    Pain; 2015 Nov; 156(11):2132-2151. PubMed ID: 26207651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The use of the faces, legs, activity, cry and consolability scale to assess procedural pain and distress in young children.
    Babl FE; Crellin D; Cheng J; Sullivan TP; O'Sullivan R; Hutchinson A
    Pediatr Emerg Care; 2012 Dec; 28(12):1281-96. PubMed ID: 23187981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessing procedural pain in infants: a feasibility study evaluating a point-of-care mobile solution based on automated facial analysis.
    Hoti K; Chivers PT; Hughes JD
    Lancet Digit Health; 2021 Oct; 3(10):e623-e634. PubMed ID: 34481769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Analysis of the validation of existing behavioral pain and distress scales for use in the procedural setting.
    Crellin D; Sullivan TP; Babl FE; O'Sullivan R; Hutchinson A
    Paediatr Anaesth; 2007 Aug; 17(8):720-33. PubMed ID: 17596217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Development and preliminary psychometric testing of the Multidimensional Assessment of Pain Scale: MAPS.
    Ramelet AS; Rees N; McDonald S; Bulsara M; Abu-Saad HH
    Paediatr Anaesth; 2007 Apr; 17(4):333-40. PubMed ID: 17359401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The COMFORT behavioural scale and the modified FLACC scale in paediatric intensive care.
    Johansson M; Kokinsky E
    Nurs Crit Care; 2009; 14(3):122-30. PubMed ID: 19366409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Discriminant properties of the Behavioral Pain Scale for assessment of procedural pain-related distress in ventilated children.
    Mauritz MD; Uhlenberg F; Dreier LA; Giordano V; Deindl P
    Scand J Pain; 2022 Jul; 22(3):464-472. PubMed ID: 35451587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Verifying the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) Behavioral Scale.
    Matsuishi Y; Hoshino H; Shimojo N; Enomoto Y; Kido T; Hoshino T; Sumitani M; Inoue Y
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(3):e0194094. PubMed ID: 29534083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS).
    Crellin DJ; Babl FE; Santamaria N; Harrison D
    J Pediatr Nurs; 2018; 40():14-26. PubMed ID: 29776475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Where Are We: A Systematic Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of Pain Assessment Scales for Use in Chinese Children.
    Bai J; Jiang N
    Pain Manag Nurs; 2015 Aug; 16(4):617-31. PubMed ID: 26256224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessment of four pain scales for evaluating procedural pain in premature infants undergoing heel blood collection.
    Xie W; Wang X; Huang R; Chen Y; Guo X
    Pediatr Res; 2021 May; 89(7):1724-1731. PubMed ID: 32599608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The FLACC behavioral scale for procedural pain assessment in children aged 5-16 years.
    Nilsson S; Finnström B; Kokinsky E
    Paediatr Anaesth; 2008 Aug; 18(8):767-74. PubMed ID: 18613934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of the psychometric properties of 3 pain scales used in the pediatric emergency department: Visual Analogue Scale, Faces Pain Scale-Revised, and Colour Analogue Scale.
    Le May S; Ballard A; Khadra C; Gouin S; Plint AC; Villeneuve E; Mâsse B; Tsze DS; Neto G; Drendel AL; Auclair MC; McGrath PJ; Ali S
    Pain; 2018 Aug; 159(8):1508-1517. PubMed ID: 29608509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Validity and reliability of two pain assessment tools in Brazilian children and adolescents.
    da Silva FC; Santos Thuler LC; de Leon-Casasola OA
    J Clin Nurs; 2011 Jul; 20(13-14):1842-8. PubMed ID: 21564357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.