Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To clinically evaluate previously developed pain scales [Donkey Chronic Pain Composite Pain Scale (DCP-CPS), Donkey Chronic Pain Facial Assessment of Pain (DCP-FAP) and combined Donkey Chronic Pain Scale (DCPS)], including behavioural and facial expression-based variables, for the assessment of chronic pain in donkeys.
METHODS: Prospective, blinded clinical study.
METHODS: A group of 77 donkeys (34 patients and 43 healthy control animals).
METHODS: Animals were assessed by two observers that were blinded to the condition of the animals.
RESULTS: Both DCP-CPS and DCP-FAP, and resulting combined DCPS scores, showed good interobserver reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.86-0.95, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.71, CI = 0.50-0.83, p < 0.001 and ICC = 0.84, CI = 0.72-0.91, p < 0.001, respectively]. All scores (DCP-CPS, DCP-FAP and the resulting combined DCPS) were significantly higher for patients than for controls at all time points (p < 0.001 for all three scales). Sensitivity and specificity for identification of pain (cut-off value >3) was 73.0% and 65.1% for DCP-CPS, and 60.9% and 83.3% for DCP-FAP, respectively. For the combined DCPS, sensitivity was 87.0% and specificity 90.9% (cut-off value >6).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on behavioural and facial expression-based variables, DCPS proved a promising and reproducible tool to assess different types of chronic pain in donkeys. The combination of behavioural and facial expression-based variables showed the best discriminatory characteristics in the current study. Further studies are needed for refinement of these tools.
METHODS: Prospective, blinded clinical study.
METHODS: A group of 77 donkeys (34 patients and 43 healthy control animals).
METHODS: Animals were assessed by two observers that were blinded to the condition of the animals.
RESULTS: Both DCP-CPS and DCP-FAP, and resulting combined DCPS scores, showed good interobserver reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.86-0.95, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.71, CI = 0.50-0.83, p < 0.001 and ICC = 0.84, CI = 0.72-0.91, p < 0.001, respectively]. All scores (DCP-CPS, DCP-FAP and the resulting combined DCPS) were significantly higher for patients than for controls at all time points (p < 0.001 for all three scales). Sensitivity and specificity for identification of pain (cut-off value >3) was 73.0% and 65.1% for DCP-CPS, and 60.9% and 83.3% for DCP-FAP, respectively. For the combined DCPS, sensitivity was 87.0% and specificity 90.9% (cut-off value >6).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on behavioural and facial expression-based variables, DCPS proved a promising and reproducible tool to assess different types of chronic pain in donkeys. The combination of behavioural and facial expression-based variables showed the best discriminatory characteristics in the current study. Further studies are needed for refinement of these tools.
摘要：
目的：临床评估先前开发的疼痛量表[驴慢性疼痛复合疼痛量表（DCP-CPS），驴慢性疼痛面部疼痛评估（DCP-FAP）和驴慢性疼痛综合量表（DCPS）]，包括基于行为和面部表情的变量，用于评估驴的慢性疼痛。
方法：前瞻性，盲法临床研究。
方法:一组77只驴(34例患者和43只健康对照动物)。
方法:由两名不知道动物状况的观察者评估动物。
结果：DCP-CPS和DCP-FAP，以及由此产生的DCPS综合得分，显示出良好的观察者间可靠性[组内相关系数（ICC）=0.91，95％置信区间（CI）=0.86-0.95，p<0.001;ICC=0.71，CI=0.50-0.83，p<0.001和ICC=0.84，CI=0.72-0.91，p<0.001]。所有分数（DCP-CPS，在所有时间点，患者的DCP-FAP和所得的组合DCPS）均显着高于对照组（所有三个量表的p<0.001）。DCP-CPS识别疼痛（临界值>3）的敏感性和特异性分别为73.0％和65.1％，DCP-FAP分别为60.9%和83.3%，分别。对于组合的DCPS，敏感性为87.0%,特异性为90.9%(临界值>6)。
结论：基于基于行为和面部表情的变量，DCPS被证明是一种有前途且可重复的工具，可用于评估驴的不同类型的慢性疼痛。基于行为和面部表情的变量的组合在当前研究中显示出最佳的区分特征。需要进一步的研究来完善这些工具。
方法：前瞻性，盲法临床研究。
方法:一组77只驴(34例患者和43只健康对照动物)。
方法:由两名不知道动物状况的观察者评估动物。
结果：DCP-CPS和DCP-FAP，以及由此产生的DCPS综合得分，显示出良好的观察者间可靠性[组内相关系数（ICC）=0.91，95％置信区间（CI）=0.86-0.95，p<0.001;ICC=0.71，CI=0.50-0.83，p<0.001和ICC=0.84，CI=0.72-0.91，p<0.001]。所有分数（DCP-CPS，在所有时间点，患者的DCP-FAP和所得的组合DCPS）均显着高于对照组（所有三个量表的p<0.001）。DCP-CPS识别疼痛（临界值>3）的敏感性和特异性分别为73.0％和65.1％，DCP-FAP分别为60.9%和83.3%，分别。对于组合的DCPS，敏感性为87.0%,特异性为90.9%(临界值>6)。
结论：基于基于行为和面部表情的变量，DCPS被证明是一种有前途且可重复的工具，可用于评估驴的不同类型的慢性疼痛。基于行为和面部表情的变量的组合在当前研究中显示出最佳的区分特征。需要进一步的研究来完善这些工具。
