118Abstracts / Scandinavian Journal of Pain 12 (2016) 117–124by funding from Örebro University and Örebro University HospitalResearch Foundation.Conclusions: PEARL fulﬁls the need for a collaborative networkfor pain in early life researchers in the Nordic countries.Effectiveness of smart tablets as a distractionduring needle insertion amongst children withport catheter: Pre-research with pre-post testdesignhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.05.006B. Bragadóttir a , J. Hjörleifsdóttir b , S.E. Egeland c ,G. Kristjánsdóttir a,∗Searching for protein biomarkers in painmedicine – Mindless dredging or rationalﬁshing?University of Iceland, Reykjavik, IcelandLandspitali, Reykjavik, Icelandc Rikshospitalet, Oslo, NorwayE-mail address: email@example.com (G. Kristjánsdóttir).E. Bäckryd ∗Pain and Rehabilitation Centre, and Department ofMedical and Health Sciences, Linköping University,Linköping, SwedenE-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org.Aims: Biomarker research seems to be somewhat controversialin pain medicine. Because pain is a subjective experience, renowned pain researcher Eija Kalso wrote in a 2004 Pain editorial thatbiomarkers for pain is an impossibility. However, in the same editorial, she also seemed to imply that what she called “biomarkersof (neuronal) activity in the nociceptive pathway” would be possible. Recently, I proposed the neologism “noci-marker” as a betterterm than “pain biomarker” for denoting attempts to ﬁnd objective,measurable correlates to the neurobiological processes involvedin different pain conditions. The purpose of the present conceptual work is to propose criteria for sensible hypothesis-generatingresearch in the ﬁeld of “noci-marker” research.Method: Conceptual theoretical work, with examples from theliterature.Results: Criteria for sensible biomarker research in pathologicalpain conditions, together with examples from the literature, willbe presented for discussion, including consideration of (work inprogress):• “Mirroring” rationale – which body ﬂuid is studied? The exampleof saliva vs. cerebrospinal ﬂuid.• Time frame rationale – when is it sensible to look for what? Theexample of Cystatin C.• Statistical considerations – univariate multiple testing vs. correlation structure of a whole data set. The example of multivariatedata analysis by projection using SIMCA.• The deﬁnition of patient cohorts – clinically and phenotypically.• Relating ﬁndings to the literature and to systems biology. Theexample of Pain Networks.• Reporting issues – how should the hypothesis-generating (explorative) nature of such studies be acknowledged?Conclusions: Although it seems ethically dangerous and philosophically dubious to talk about “pain biomarkers”, searchingfor biological correlates to pathological activity in the nociceptive pathways (“noci-markers”) seems justiﬁed and conceptuallypossible.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.05.007abAims: Children who experience pain and anxiety while undergoing interventions or treatments during hospitalization at a youngage can experience negative feelings which can inﬂuence how theyexperience health care in the future.The purpose of the study was to evaluate the protocol of using atablet computer as a source of distraction from pain and fear whenchildren undergo needle insertion in a port catheter (port-a-cath® ).Methods: The study uses a quasi-experimental pretest-post testdesign with a sample of 14 children, 20 months to 16 years of age,9 boys and 5 girls. Pain and fear were ﬁrst evaluated without thedistraction of a tablet computer. The second time pain and fear wereevaluated while a tablet computer was used for distraction. Thechildren evaluated their pain and fear with a 10 cm Numeric RatingScale (NRS/VAS) and six faces scales in all cases except three. Inthose three cases the mothers evaluated the children’s pain and fearwith the NRS, the Faces scale, or the Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolabilityscale (FLACC).Results: The Shapiro–Wilk test showed a signiﬁcant distribution (p < 0.05) of pain and fear but most subjects did not feel any fearbefore the intervention. The mean score of pain was 2.90 (sd = 3.67)and the mean score for fear was 3.67 (sd = 3.76). No signiﬁcantdifference was found between pain and the fear prior to the intervention (p = 0.09). Children who felt fear prior to the intervention(n = 5) experienced signiﬁcantly lower pain when a tablet computer was used (p < 0.05). No difference was found between painand fear by age or gender. No difference in pain was found by thetype of distraction (p = 0.20). All subjects where highly experiencedwith needle insertions and some of them had developed their ownapproach to deal with the intervention.Conclusions: More extensive research is needed in this area.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.05.008Postoperative oxycodone in breast cancersurgery: What factors associate with analgesicplasma concentrations?Kristiina Cajanus a , Mikko Neuvonen b , MariKaunisto c,d , Outi Koskela b , Pertti J. Neuvonen b ,Mikko Niemi b , Eija Kalso a,∗aDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care andPain Medicine, University of Helsinki and HelsinkiUniversity Hospital, Finlandb Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University ofHelsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Finlandc Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM),University of Helsinki, Finlandd Folkhälsan Institute of Genetics, FolkhälsanResearch Center, Helsinki, FinlandE-mail address: eija.kalso@helsinki.ﬁ (E. Kalso).Aims: Parenteral oxycodone is increasingly used worldwideto manage perioperative pain. Oxycodone doses required foradequate analgesia vary signiﬁcantly between individuals. Our
Scandinavian Journal of Pain – de Gruyter
Published: Jul 1, 2016
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera