FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2897416692> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2897416692 endingPage "51" @default.
• W2897416692 startingPage "39" @default.
• W2897416692 abstract "Abstract Background and aims As indicated by experimental studies, reports of pain intensity may depend on the examiner’s gender. Until now, it is unclear whether this is relevant in clinical routine. This study investigated prospectively whether the gender of assessor plays a role in patients’ pain reports and whether this role differs in male and female patients. Methods 165 patients (66.4 years±0.63; 118 males) scheduled for heart surgery were allocated consecutively to one examiner out of four students of both genders: two females and two males (aged 24.3 years±1.7). Therefore, the following study groups were defined: Group 1: female assessors-female patients, 2: female-male; 3: male-female, 4: male-male. Using a standardized analgesic scheme, patients were asked to rank their pain intensity on a numeric rating scale (NRS: 0–10), postoperatively. Statistics: Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney; p <0.05. Additionally, a qualitative literature review of the databases Medline and CENTRAL was performed focusing on experimental and clinical studies on experimenter gender bias. Due to the review, this prospective clinical study was designed to investigate whether patients after surgery report lower pain intensities when assessed by a female compared to a male assessor. Results Summarizing all patients, pain intensity on POD_1 was rated 4.0±2.4 on NRS and decreased on POD_2 to 3.0±2.1 [H(3)=37.941, p =0.000]. On average, pain intensity did not differ between males and females (NRS: 3.5 vs. 3.6). Only on the second postoperative day, more intense pain was reported in front of female assessors and less intense pain in front of male assessors (NRS: 3.4 vs. 2.4; p =0.000). A main effect for the four groups was seen ( p =0.003): male patients reported higher pain scores to female assessors (NRS: 3.5 vs. 2.3; p =0.000). Conclusions Together, contrary to the expectations, patients after cardiac surgery reported a higher pain intensity in front of a female and a lower pain intensity in front of a male assessor. In particular, female caregivers may heighten the reported pain intensity up to 1.2 NRS-points; this bias seems to be more relevant for male patients. Implications Therefore, despite some methodological weakness, our data suggest that attention should be paid to a rather small, but somehow significant and consistent examiner gender bias after cardiac surgery especially in male patients. Further clinical studies are needed to show the true extent of clinical relevance and exact mechanisms underlying these gender reporting bias." @default.
• W2897416692 created "2018-10-26" @default.
• W2897416692 creator A5006750616 @default.
• W2897416692 creator A5025049560 @default.
• W2897416692 creator A5061598742 @default.
• W2897416692 creator A5073405622 @default.
• W2897416692 date "2018-10-10" @default.
• W2897416692 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2897416692 title "A prospective study of patients’ pain intensity after cardiac surgery and a qualitative review: effects of examiners’ gender on patient reporting" @default.
• W2897416692 cites W1801303357 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W1996940368 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2000492372 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2008617354 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2014159435 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2027642651 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2029098788 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2040248009 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2043177715 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2053788108 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2055428570 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2066984255 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2072109292 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2085819476 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2092073393 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2109979737 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2123466071 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2130796860 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2154798479 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2167613032 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2253635377 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2267836215 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2582903613 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2793686338 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2803692240 @default.
• W2897416692 cites W2914765137 @default.
• W2897416692 doi "https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2018-0111" @default.
• W2897416692 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30303812" @default.
• W2897416692 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2897416692 type Work @default.
• W2897416692 sameAs 2897416692 @default.
• W2897416692 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W2897416692 countsByYear W28974166922020 @default.
• W2897416692 countsByYear W28974166922021 @default.
• W2897416692 countsByYear W28974166922022 @default.
• W2897416692 countsByYear W28974166922023 @default.
• W2897416692 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2897416692 hasAuthorship W2897416692A5006750616 @default.
• W2897416692 hasAuthorship W2897416692A5025049560 @default.
• W2897416692 hasAuthorship W2897416692A5061598742 @default.
• W2897416692 hasAuthorship W2897416692A5073405622 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConcept C188816634 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConcept C93038891 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConceptScore W2897416692C121332964 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConceptScore W2897416692C126322002 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConceptScore W2897416692C17744445 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConceptScore W2897416692C1862650 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConceptScore W2897416692C188816634 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConceptScore W2897416692C199539241 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConceptScore W2897416692C2779473830 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConceptScore W2897416692C62520636 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConceptScore W2897416692C71924100 @default.
• W2897416692 hasConceptScore W2897416692C93038891 @default.
• W2897416692 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2897416692 hasLocation W28974166921 @default.
• W2897416692 hasLocation W28974166922 @default.
• W2897416692 hasOpenAccess W2897416692 @default.
• W2897416692 hasPrimaryLocation W28974166921 @default.
• W2897416692 hasRelatedWork W2055141553 @default.
• W2897416692 hasRelatedWork W2076993109 @default.
• W2897416692 hasRelatedWork W2159723344 @default.
• W2897416692 hasRelatedWork W2295722933 @default.
• W2897416692 hasRelatedWork W2332506018 @default.
• W2897416692 hasRelatedWork W2407093027 @default.
• W2897416692 hasRelatedWork W2411569915 @default.
• W2897416692 hasRelatedWork W2515762743 @default.
• W2897416692 hasRelatedWork W2531350361 @default.
• W2897416692 hasRelatedWork W4283764297 @default.
• W2897416692 hasVolume "19" @default.
• W2897416692 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2897416692 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2897416692 magId "2897416692" @default.
• W2897416692 workType "article" @default.