A scale with robust statistical validation is essential to diagnose pain and improve decision making for analgesia. This blind, randomised, prospective and opportunist study aimed to develop an ethogram to evaluate behaviour and validate a scale to assess acute ovine postoperative pain. Elective laparoscopy was performed in 48 healthy sheep, filmed at one preoperative and three postoperative moments, before and after rescue analgesia and 24 hours after. The videos were randomised and assessed twice by four evaluators, with a one-month interval between evaluations. Statistical analysis was performed using R software and differences were considered significant when p <0.05. Based on the multiple association, a unidimensional scale was adopted. The intra-and inter-observer reliability ranged from moderate to very good (intraclass correlation coefficient � 0.53). The scale presented Spearman correlations > 0.80 with the numerical, simple descriptive, and visual analogue scales, and a correlation of 0.48 with the facial expression scale. According to the mixed linear model, the scale was responsive, due to the increase and decrease in pain scores of all items after surgery and analgesic intervention, respectively. All items on the scale demonstrated an acceptable Spearman item-total correlation (0.56-0.76), except for appetite (0.25). The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.81) and all items presented specificity > 0.72 and sensitivity between 0.61-0.90, except for appetite. According to the Youden index, the cutoff point was � 4 out of 12, with a diagnostic uncertainty zone of 4 to 5. The area under the curve > 0.95 demonstrated the excellent discriminatory capacity of the instrument. In conclusion, the Unesp-Botucatu pain scale in sheep submitted to laparoscopy is valid, reliable, specific, sensitive, with excellent internal consistency, accuracy, discriminatory capacity, and a defined cutoff point.

Background The UNESP-Botucatu multidimensional feline pain assessment scale (UFEPS) is a valid and reliable instrument for acute pain assessment in cats. However, its limitations are that responsiveness was not tested using a negative control group, it was validated only for ovariohysterectomy, and it can be time-consuming. We aimed to evaluate the construct and criterion validity, reliability, sensitivity, and specificity of the UFEPS and its novel short form (SF) in various clinical or painful surgical conditions. Methods Ten client-owned healthy controls (CG) and 40 client-owned cats requiring pain management for clinical or surgical care (20 clinical and 20 surgery group (12 orthopedic and eight soft tissue surgeries) were recruited. Three evaluators assessed pain, in real-time, in clinical cases before and 20 min after rescue analgesia and in surgical cases before and up to 6.5 hours postoperatively, by using the visual analog, numerical ratio, and a simple descriptive scale, in this order, followed by the UFEPS-SF, UFEPS and Glasgow multidimensional feline pain (Glasgow CMPS-Feline) in random order. For the surgical group, rescue analgesia (methadone 0.2 mg/kg IM or IV and/or dipyrone 12.5 mg/kg IV) was performed when the UFEPS-SF score was ≥4 or exceptionally according to clinical judgement. If a third interventional analgesia was required, methadone (0.1–0.2 mg/kg IM) and ketamine (1 mg/kg IM) were administered. For the clinical group, all cats received rescue analgesia (methadone 0.1–0.2 mg/kg IM or IV or nalbuphine 0.5 mg/kg IM or IV), according to the clinician in charge, regardless of pain scores. Construct (1—comparison of scores in cats undergoing pain vs pain-free control cats by unpaired Wilcoxon-test and 2—responsiveness to analgesia by paired Wilcoxon test) and concurrent criterion validity (Spearman correlation of the total score among scales), inter-rater reliability, specificity and sensitivity were calculated for each scale (α = 0.05). Results Reliability ranged between moderate and good for the UFEPS and UFEPS-SF (confidence intervals of intraclass coefficients = 0.73–0.86 and 0.63–0.82 respectively). The Spearman correlation between UFEPS and UFEPS-SF was 0.85, and their correlation with Glasgow CMPS-Feline was strong (0.79 and 0.78 respectively), confirming criterion validity. All scales showed construct validity or responsiveness (higher scores of cats with clinical and postoperative pain vs healthy controls, and the reduction in scores after rescue analgesia). The sensitivity and specificity of the UFEPS, UFEPS-SF and Glasgow CMPS-Feline were moderate (sensitivity 83.25, 78.60% and 74.28%; specificity 72.00, 84.67 and 70.00%, respectively). Conclusions Both UFEPS and UFEPS–SF showed appropriate concurrent validity, responsiveness, reliability, sensitivity, and specificity for feline acute pain assessment in cats with various clinical and orthopedic and soft tissue surgical conditions.

Summary Background Standing surgery avoids the risks of general anaesthesia in horses. Objectives To assess sedation, antinociception and gastrointestinal motility in standing horses after a detomidine loading dose and 2‐h constant rate intravenous (i.v.) infusion, with or without methadone. Study design Blinded, randomised, crossover with seven healthy adult cross‐bred horses, three geldings and four females (404 ± 22 kg). Methods Five i.v. treatments were administered to all horses with 1‐week washout period: saline (SAL), detomidine low (2.5 μg/kg bwt + 6.25 μg/kg bwt/h) (DL) and high doses (5 μg/kg bwt + 12.5 μg/kg bwt/h) (DH) alone or combined with methadone (0.2 mg/kg bwt + 0.05 mg/kg bwt/h), (DLM) and (DHM), respectively. Height of head above the ground (HHAG), electrical (ET), thermal (TT) and mechanical (MT) nociceptive thresholds and gastrointestinal motility were evaluated at predetermined times between 5 and 240 min. A mixed effect model and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to analyse normally and non‐normally distributed data, respectively. Results Sedation (<50% basal HHAG) was achieved for the duration of the infusion, and for an additional 15 min in DH and DHM groups. Nociceptive thresholds were higher than baseline, to the greatest degree and the longest duration, with DHM (ET and TT for 135 min and MT for 150 min). After DH, TT was significantly higher than baseline from 30 to 120 min and MT from 15 to 135 min. After DLM, ET was increased at 90 min, TT at 30 min and MT for 120 min. Gastrointestinal motility was reduced for up to 135 min after DL, 150 min after DLM and 210 min after DH and DHM. Main limitations Nociceptive thresholds are not equivalent to surgical stimuli. Conclusion Methadone with the highest detomidine dose (DHM) may provide sufficient sedation and analgesia for standing surgical procedures and warrants further investigation.

An extensive search for randomised controlled clinical trials was accomplished to compare dental prostheses and occlusal splints constructed with or without face-bow transfer, and question whether face-bow transfer may present better clinical results than simpler approaches. Studies were identified by searching electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Latin American and Caribbean Literature on the Health Science, and Brazilian Bibliography of Dentistry). The keywords 'dental articulator', 'semi-adjustable articulator', 'face-bow', 'jaw relation record' and 'occlusal splint therapy' were used. The minimum inclusion requirements were (i) randomised controlled trials with patients of any age, (ii) comparison between dental prostheses or occlusal splints constructed with or without face-bow transfer and (iii) assessment of clinician's time, number of occlusal contacts, patient satisfaction or masticatory function. The search resulted in the identification of 8779 articles. Subsequently, 8763 articles were excluded on the basis of title and abstract. By the end of the search phase, eight randomised controlled trials were considered eligible. Current scientific evidence suggests that face-bow transfer is not imperative to achieve better clinical results in prosthodontics. Randomised clinical trials suggest that simpler approaches for the construction of complete dentures and occlusal splints may present acceptable results, while no clinical study has investigated its use in fixed and removable partial dentures.

No abstract