Introduction: The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), used to assess the severity of social anxiety disorder (SAD), requires considerable effort and time to complete. The aims of this study were: 1) to investigate ...Introduction: The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), used to assess the severity of social anxiety disorder (SAD), requires considerable effort and time to complete. The aims of this study were: 1) to investigate whether a visual analogue scale (VAS) could be linear with the LSAS and substitute for the LSAS, 2) to relate such a VAS instrument to patient demographics. Methods: Fifty SAD patients were assessed using the LSAS and VAS instruments completed by both patients and doctors at the same session. We then drew distributions and calculated the Spearman’s ρ and κ coefficient values (divided at the median for each scale) between patient and doctor assessments. Next, each pair among the scores for the LSAS, the patient VAS and the doctor VAS was compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests according to patient life profile data. Results: Scatter plots of pairs of scores were obtained. Spearman’s ρ was 0.661 between the LSAS and the patient VAS, 0.461 between the LSAS and the doctor VAS, and 0.494 between VAS scores of patients and doctors. The κ coefficients were 0.501 between the LSAS and patient VAS, 0.251 between the LSAS and doctor VAS, and 0.425 between patient VAS and doctor VAS (for all six, p < 0.001). The Wilcoxon rank sum tests indicated a significant difference between the groups with/ without “employment” (LSAS, patient/doctor VAS), with/without “graduation from junior college/university” (doctor VAS) (p < 0.05) and with/without marital history (the age of first consultation) (p < 0.01). Conclusions: A patient VAS may substitute for the LSAS and offer the versatility necessary to capture patient states and life profiles.展开更多
目的分析不同剂量右美托咪定(Dex)复合腰硬联合麻醉对产科手术中麻醉效果、血压及视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分的影响。方法200例产妇作为观察对象,根据Dex剂量不同分为对照组(C组)、低剂量组(D1组)、中剂量组(D2组)、中-高剂量组(D3组)和...目的分析不同剂量右美托咪定(Dex)复合腰硬联合麻醉对产科手术中麻醉效果、血压及视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分的影响。方法200例产妇作为观察对象,根据Dex剂量不同分为对照组(C组)、低剂量组(D1组)、中剂量组(D2组)、中-高剂量组(D3组)和高剂量组(D4组),每组40例。对比五组不同时段Ramsay评分、视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分、血压水平、不良反应发生率、新生儿1 min及5 min Apgar评分。结果入室麻醉后平卧位即刻(T0),五组产妇Ramsay、VAS评分对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);胎儿娩出时(T1),D2组、D3组及D4组产妇Ramsay评分分别为(4.92±0.11)、(4.95±0.13)、(4.88±0.11)分,明显高于C组的(2.84±0.24)分与D1组的(3.12±0.14)分,VAS评分分别为(2.06±0.22)、(2.03±0.19)、(2.02±0.19)分,明显低于C组的(4.13±0.24)分与D1组的(3.13±0.27)分,且D1组产妇Ramsay评分明显高于C组,VAS评分明显低于C组(P<0.05);术后12 h(T2),D2组、D3组及D4组产妇VAS评分分别为(2.46±0.37)、(2.49±0.36)、(2.42±0.34)分,明显低于C组的(5.13±0.24)分与D1组的(4.05±0.71)分,且D1组产妇VAS评分明显低于C组(P<0.05);D2组、D3组及D4组产妇T1时的Ramsay、VAS评分及T2时的VAS评分对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。五组新生儿1 min及5 min Apgar评分对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。T0时,五组产妇收缩压及舒张压水平对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);T1、T2时,D2组、D3组及D4组产妇收缩压及舒张压水平明显低于C组与D1组,且D1组产妇收缩压及舒张压水平明显低于C组(P<0.05);D2组、D3组及D4组产妇T1、T2时的收缩压及舒张压水平对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。D2组产妇不良反应发生率2.5%(1/40)低于C组的15.0%(6/40)、D1组的15.0%(6/40)、D3组的15.0%(6/40)、D4组的17.5%(7/40)(P<0.05)。结论0.5μg/kg Dex有助于稳定血压水平,提高麻醉效果,减轻术中疼痛,降低麻醉后不良反应发生率,且不会对新生儿出生造成不利影响,可作为最佳调控剂量。展开更多
Caffeine is a commonly ingested psychoactive substance which affects alertness and cognition. A clinical study was conducted to determine the effect of orally ingested caffeine on visual analogue scale (VAS) responses...Caffeine is a commonly ingested psychoactive substance which affects alertness and cognition. A clinical study was conducted to determine the effect of orally ingested caffeine on visual analogue scale (VAS) responses in healthy, moderate caffeine-consuming volunteers through the use of population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) modeling. Twelve subjects were recruited for a three-period cross-over study which utilized caffeine containing beverages. Each visit included 8-hour blood plasma and VAS response collection for PK and PD assessment respectively. The VAS used in the study, also called the caffeine analog scale, has been previously validated for caffeine. Population PK-PD modeling was conducted with NONMEM 7.2. Simultaneous and sequential modeling of PK-PD was attempted. Final model selection was based on parameter estimate precision, diagnostic plots, and visual predictive check (VPC) plots. Results showed that a one-compartment open model with first-order absorption and elimination best described the pharmacokinetics of caffeine. Sequential PK-PD modeling was successful and an effect compartment model with linear slope and baseline parameter best described caffeine pharmacodynamics. Diagnostic plots showed no major bias and VPC plots showed agreement between observations and predictions. The model was able to link VAS responses to caffeine concentration in healthy volunteers and may be useful in clinical trial simulations and design.展开更多
文摘Introduction: The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), used to assess the severity of social anxiety disorder (SAD), requires considerable effort and time to complete. The aims of this study were: 1) to investigate whether a visual analogue scale (VAS) could be linear with the LSAS and substitute for the LSAS, 2) to relate such a VAS instrument to patient demographics. Methods: Fifty SAD patients were assessed using the LSAS and VAS instruments completed by both patients and doctors at the same session. We then drew distributions and calculated the Spearman’s ρ and κ coefficient values (divided at the median for each scale) between patient and doctor assessments. Next, each pair among the scores for the LSAS, the patient VAS and the doctor VAS was compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests according to patient life profile data. Results: Scatter plots of pairs of scores were obtained. Spearman’s ρ was 0.661 between the LSAS and the patient VAS, 0.461 between the LSAS and the doctor VAS, and 0.494 between VAS scores of patients and doctors. The κ coefficients were 0.501 between the LSAS and patient VAS, 0.251 between the LSAS and doctor VAS, and 0.425 between patient VAS and doctor VAS (for all six, p < 0.001). The Wilcoxon rank sum tests indicated a significant difference between the groups with/ without “employment” (LSAS, patient/doctor VAS), with/without “graduation from junior college/university” (doctor VAS) (p < 0.05) and with/without marital history (the age of first consultation) (p < 0.01). Conclusions: A patient VAS may substitute for the LSAS and offer the versatility necessary to capture patient states and life profiles.
文摘目的分析不同剂量右美托咪定(Dex)复合腰硬联合麻醉对产科手术中麻醉效果、血压及视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分的影响。方法200例产妇作为观察对象,根据Dex剂量不同分为对照组(C组)、低剂量组(D1组)、中剂量组(D2组)、中-高剂量组(D3组)和高剂量组(D4组),每组40例。对比五组不同时段Ramsay评分、视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分、血压水平、不良反应发生率、新生儿1 min及5 min Apgar评分。结果入室麻醉后平卧位即刻(T0),五组产妇Ramsay、VAS评分对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);胎儿娩出时(T1),D2组、D3组及D4组产妇Ramsay评分分别为(4.92±0.11)、(4.95±0.13)、(4.88±0.11)分,明显高于C组的(2.84±0.24)分与D1组的(3.12±0.14)分,VAS评分分别为(2.06±0.22)、(2.03±0.19)、(2.02±0.19)分,明显低于C组的(4.13±0.24)分与D1组的(3.13±0.27)分,且D1组产妇Ramsay评分明显高于C组,VAS评分明显低于C组(P<0.05);术后12 h(T2),D2组、D3组及D4组产妇VAS评分分别为(2.46±0.37)、(2.49±0.36)、(2.42±0.34)分,明显低于C组的(5.13±0.24)分与D1组的(4.05±0.71)分,且D1组产妇VAS评分明显低于C组(P<0.05);D2组、D3组及D4组产妇T1时的Ramsay、VAS评分及T2时的VAS评分对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。五组新生儿1 min及5 min Apgar评分对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。T0时,五组产妇收缩压及舒张压水平对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);T1、T2时,D2组、D3组及D4组产妇收缩压及舒张压水平明显低于C组与D1组,且D1组产妇收缩压及舒张压水平明显低于C组(P<0.05);D2组、D3组及D4组产妇T1、T2时的收缩压及舒张压水平对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。D2组产妇不良反应发生率2.5%(1/40)低于C组的15.0%(6/40)、D1组的15.0%(6/40)、D3组的15.0%(6/40)、D4组的17.5%(7/40)(P<0.05)。结论0.5μg/kg Dex有助于稳定血压水平,提高麻醉效果,减轻术中疼痛,降低麻醉后不良反应发生率,且不会对新生儿出生造成不利影响,可作为最佳调控剂量。
文摘Caffeine is a commonly ingested psychoactive substance which affects alertness and cognition. A clinical study was conducted to determine the effect of orally ingested caffeine on visual analogue scale (VAS) responses in healthy, moderate caffeine-consuming volunteers through the use of population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) modeling. Twelve subjects were recruited for a three-period cross-over study which utilized caffeine containing beverages. Each visit included 8-hour blood plasma and VAS response collection for PK and PD assessment respectively. The VAS used in the study, also called the caffeine analog scale, has been previously validated for caffeine. Population PK-PD modeling was conducted with NONMEM 7.2. Simultaneous and sequential modeling of PK-PD was attempted. Final model selection was based on parameter estimate precision, diagnostic plots, and visual predictive check (VPC) plots. Results showed that a one-compartment open model with first-order absorption and elimination best described the pharmacokinetics of caffeine. Sequential PK-PD modeling was successful and an effect compartment model with linear slope and baseline parameter best described caffeine pharmacodynamics. Diagnostic plots showed no major bias and VPC plots showed agreement between observations and predictions. The model was able to link VAS responses to caffeine concentration in healthy volunteers and may be useful in clinical trial simulations and design.
