Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.

Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.

Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.

Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.

Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.

This systematic review evaluated psychiatric adverse events (AEs) following vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We included studies that reported or investigated psychiatric AEs in individuals who had received an approved COVID-19 vaccine in the Republic of Korea. Systematic electronic searches of Ovid-Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and KoreaMed databases were conducted on March 22, 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies 2.0. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023449422). Of the 301 articles initially selected, 7 were included in the final analysis. All studies reported on sleep disturbances, and 2 highlighted anxiety-related AEs. Sleep disorders like insomnia and narcolepsy were the most prevalent AEs, while depression was not reported. Our review suggests that these AEs may have been influenced by biological mechanisms as well as the broader psychosocial context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although this study had limitations, such as a primary focus on the BNT162b2 vaccine and an observational study design, it offered a systematic, multi-vaccine analysis that fills a critical gap in the existing literature. This review underscores the need for continued surveillance of psychiatric AEs and guides future research to investigate underlying mechanisms, identify risk factors, and inform clinical management.

Background/Aims: The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV. Results: A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77–1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59–0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events. Conclusions In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.

This review explores the essential methodologies for effective postoperative pain management, focusing on the need for thorough pain assessment tools, as underscored in various existing guidelines. Herein, the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used pain scales for postoperative pain—the Visual Analog Scale, Numeric Rating Scale, Verbal Rating Scale, and Faces Pain Scale—are evaluated, highlighting the importance of selecting appropriate assessment tools based on factors influencing their effectiveness in surgical contexts. By emphasizing the need to comprehend the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these scales in evaluating new analgesic interventions and monitoring pain trajectories over time, this review advocates recognizing the limitations of common pain scales to improve pain assessment strategies, ultimately enhancing postoperative pain management. Finally, five recommendations for pain assessment in research on postoperative pain are provided: first, selecting an appropriate pain scale tailored to the patient group, considering the strengths and weaknesses of each scale; second, simultaneously assessing the intensity of postoperative pain at rest and during movement; third, conducting evaluations at specific time points and monitoring trends over time; fourth, extending the focus beyond the intensity of postoperative pain to include its impact on postoperative functional recovery; and lastly, interpreting the findings while considering the MCID, ensuring that it is clinically significant for the chosen pain scale. These recommendations broaden our understanding of postoperative pain and provide insights that contribute to more effective pain management strategies, thereby enhancing patient care outcomes.

Background: Anesthetic agents are potential modifiable factors that can mitigate chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) development. This study aimed to investigate the association between propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and the occurrence of CPSP following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for lung cancer resection. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included adult patients with lung cancer who underwent elective VATS between January 2018 and December 2022. Patients were divided based on the maintenance anesthetic used (propofol vs. sevoflurane). The primary outcome was the presence of CPSP, defined as any level of surgical site pain recorded within 3–6 months postoperatively. The authors investigated the association between anesthetic agents and CPSP using propensity score matching with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW) to adjust for confounders. Additionally, multivariable logistic regression was used to further adjust for intraoperative opioid use that sIPTW could not account for. The robustness of these associations was evaluated using the E-value. Results: Of the 833 patients analyzed, 461 received propofol and 372 sevoflurane. The overall incidence of CPSP was 43.3%. After sIPTW, the use of TIVA was significantly associated with a lower incidence of CPSP (odds ratio [OR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57–0.99, P = 0.041), and remained significant after adjusting for intraoperative remifentanil equivalent dose (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55–0.96, P = 0.026). The E-values were 1.08 and 1.17, respectively. Conclusions Propofol-based TIVA is associated with reduced CPSP occurrence in VATS for lung cancer. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the results.

Purpose: Patient handovers are critical for patient safety. Studies have shown that nurses are often interrupted during handovers, and standardized guidelines are lacking. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a new handover method for emergency nurses. Methods: This quasi-experimental study implemented a new handover method from August 1, 2022, at the emergency department of a university hospital. Pre- (34 responses) and post-(16 responses, six months later) surveys and post-interviews (six participants) were conducted. In the pre-survey, data were collected regarding handover-related characteristics, cause of handover error, handover perception and handover error experience. Data regarding handover perception and handover error experience were obtained again at the post-survey. Wilcoxon’s signed rank test was used to compare handover perception and handover error experience. The interview results were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results: There were no significant differences in information quality or interaction and support, but the new handover method was more efficient, and handover errors decreased. Four themes were identified from interview responses. Conclusion By providing a quiet place and allowing emergency nurses to independently review patient records during handovers, we expect to maintain nursing continuity, increase efficiency, and ultimately ensure patient safety and nurses’ job satisfaction.