The creation of species-specific valid tools for pain assessment is essential to recognize pain and determine the requirement and efficacy of analgesic treatments. This study aimed to assess behaviour and investigate the validity and reliability of an acute pain scale in pigs undergoing orchiectomy. Forty-five pigs aged 38±3 days were castrated under local anaesthesia. Behaviour was video-recorded 30 minutes before and intermittently up to 24 hours after castration. Edited footage (before surgery, after surgery before and after rescue analgesia, and 24 hours postoperatively) was analysed twice (one month apart) by one observer who was present during video-recording (in-person researcher) and three blinded observers. Statistical analysis was performed using R software and differences were considered significant when p<0.05. Intra and inter-observer agreement, based on intra-class correlation coefficient, was good or very good between most observers (>0.60), except between observers 1 and 3 (moderate agreement 0.57). The scale was unidimensional according to principal component analysis. The scale showed acceptable item-total Spearman correlation, excellent predictive and concurrent criterion validity (Spearman correlation � 0.85 between the proposed scale versus visual analogue, numerical rating, and simple descriptive scales), internal consistency (Cronbach's α coefficient >0.80 for all items), responsiveness (the pain scores of all items of the scale increased after castration and decreased after intervention analgesia according to Friedman test), and specificity (> 95%). Sensitivity was good or excellent for most of the items. The optimal cut-off point for rescue analgesia was � 6 of 18. Discriminatory ability was excellent for all observers according to the area under the curve (>0.95). The proposed scale is a reliable and valid instrument and may be used

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.

Considering the widespread use of rabbits in research that potentially causes pain and discomfort and the limited number of pain assessment validated tools in this species, we aimed to develop and validate a scale of acute postoperative pain in rabbits (RPBS). Footage of 58 rabbits from previous studies were used, recorded at ‘baseline’ (before orthopaedic and soft tissue surgeries), ‘pain’ (after surgery), ‘analgesia’ (after analgesic), and ‘24h post’ (24 hours after surgery). The videos were randomised and assessed twice by four evaluators, within one-month interval between evaluations. After content validation, RBPS was further refined using the criteria from the validation. According to the principal component analysis, RPBS was considered unidimensional. The intra- and inter-observer reliability was excellent (ICC>0.80) for all evaluators. There was a high Spearman’s correlation of the RPBS with unidimensional scales (>0.80) and a moderate correlation with the Rabbit Grimace Scale (0.68), confirming criterion validity. According to the mixed linear model, the scale was responsive, shown by the increase in pain scores after surgery. Construct validity was confirmed by known-group approach and internal relationships among items. Adequate item-total correlation (>0.3) was observed for all items, except for the attention to the affected area (0.04). The internal consistency was very good (Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.78; Mcdonald’s ω coefficient = 0.83). The cut-off score for rescue analgesia was ≥3, with an area under the curve >0.95, demonstrating a high discriminatory capacity of the instrument. Scores 3 and 4 were within the uncertainty diagnostic zone. Specificity was 87% and sensitivity was 90%. It was concluded that the RPBS presented content, criterion, and construct validities, responsiveness, and reliability to assess acute pain in rabbits submitted to orthopaedic and soft tissue surgeries. The cut-off for rescue analgesia serves as a basis for the administration of analgesics to rabbits submitted to painful procedures.

Background Pain is the leading cause of animal suffering, hence the importance of validated tools to ensure its appropriate evaluation and treatment. We aimed to test the psychometric properties of the short form of the Unesp-Botucatu Feline Pain Scale (UFEPS-SF) in eight languages. Methods The original scale was condensed from ten to four items. The content validation was performed by five specialists in veterinary anesthesia and analgesia. The English version of the scale was translated and back-translated into Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese and Spanish by fluent English and native speaker translators. Videos of the perioperative period of 30 cats submitted to ovariohysterectomy (preoperative, after surgery, after rescue analgesia and 24 h after surgery) were randomly evaluated twice (one-month interval) by one evaluator for each language unaware of the pain condition. After watching each video, the evaluators scored the unidimensional, UFEPS-SF and Glasgow composite multidimensional feline pain scales. Statistical analyses were carried out using R software for intra and interobserver reliability, principal component analysis, criteria concurrent and predictive validities, construct validity, item-total correlation, internal consistency, specificity, sensitivity, the definition of the intervention score for rescue analgesia and diagnostic uncertainty zone, according to the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results UFEPS-SF intra- and inter-observer reliability were ≥0.92 and 0.84, respectively, for all observers. According to the principal component analysis, UFEPS-SF is a unidimensional scale. Concurrent criterion validity was confirmed by the high correlation between UFEPS-SF and all other scales (≥0.9). The total score and all items of UFEPS-SF increased after surgery (pain), decreased to baseline after analgesia and were intermediate at 24 h after surgery (moderate pain), confirming responsiveness and construct validity. Item total correlation of each item (0.68–0.83) confirmed that the items contributed homogeneously to the total score. Internal consistency was excellent (≥0.9) for all items. Both specificity (baseline) and sensitivity (after surgery) based on the Youden index was 99% (97–100%). The suggestive cut-off score for the administration of analgesia according to the ROC curve was ≥4 out of 12. The diagnostic uncertainty zone ranged from 3 to 4. The area under the curve of 0.99 indicated excellent discriminatory capacity of UFEPS-SF. Conclusions The UFEPS-SF and its items, assessed by experienced evaluators, demonstrated very good repeatability and reproducibility, content, criterion and construct validities, item-total correlation, internal consistency, excellent sensitivity and specificity and a cut-off point indicating the need for rescue analgesia in Chinese, French, English, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese and Spanish.