IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0097882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychometric Assessment of the Rat Grimace Scale and Development of an Analgesic Intervention Score

Author

Listed:
  • Vanessa Oliver
  • Debbie De Rantere
  • Rheanne Ritchie
  • Jessica Chisholm
  • Kent G Hecker
  • Daniel S J Pang

Abstract

Our limited ability to assess spontaneous pain in rodent models of painful human conditions may be associated with a translational failure of promising analgesic compounds in to clinical use. If measurement of spontaneous pain behaviours can be used to generate an analgesic intervention score their use could expand to guide the use of analgesics, as mandated by regulatory bodies and ethical and welfare obligations. One such measure of spontaneous pain, the Rat Grimace Scale (RGS), has recently been described and shown to exhibit reliability. However, reliability of measurement scores is context and content specific, and further testing required to assess translation to a heterogenous setting (different model, raters, environment). The objectives of this study were to perform reliability testing with the Rat Grimace Scale in a heterogenous setting and generate an analgesic intervention score for its use. In a randomised, blinded study, sixteen adult female rats received one of three analgesia treatments (0.05 mg/kg buprenorphine subcutaneously, 1 mg/kg meloxicam subcutaneously, 0.2 mg/kg oral buprenorphine in jelly) peri-operatively (telemetry unit implantation surgery). Rats were video-recorded (before, 1–6 and 12 hours post-operatively) and images collected for independent scoring by three blinded raters using the RGS, and five experts based on “pain/no pain” assessment. Scores were used to calculate inter- and intra-rater reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient and generate an analgesic intervention score with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The RGS scores showed very good inter- and intra-rater reliability (0.85 [0.78–0.90 95% CI] and 0.83 [0.76–0.89], respectively). An analgesic intervention threshold of greater than 0.67 was determined. These data demonstrate that the RGS is a useful tool which can be successfully employed in a heterogenous setting, and has the potential to guide analgesic intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanessa Oliver & Debbie De Rantere & Rheanne Ritchie & Jessica Chisholm & Kent G Hecker & Daniel S J Pang, 2014. "Psychometric Assessment of the Rat Grimace Scale and Development of an Analgesic Intervention Score," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-7, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0097882
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097882
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097882&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0097882?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0097882. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.