Documented Pain Relief After Emergency Department Headache Treatment Is Not a Stable Outcome: Reassessment Timing, Missingness, and Score Selection
Gorenshtein, A.; Adiniaev, Y.; Liba, T.; Klang, E.; Daniel, O.
Show abstract
Background: Whether a patient's pain improved after emergency department (ED) treatment is read from the record to benchmark EDs, compare drugs, and label research outcomes. It is interpretable only if a post-treatment score is recorded, appropriately timed, and chosen by a fixed rule; its stability across these choices is unknown. Methods: Retrospective measurement study of adult headache visits in a de-identified ED database (MIMIC-IV-ED, 2011-2019). Among treated visits, we quantified reassessment completeness by time window, estimated meaningful relief (a reduction of at least 2 points) under score-selection rules and missing-data assumptions, tested whether reassessment was predictable at treatment, and compared headache with other painful presentations. Results: Among 19,501 visits (15,273 patients), 13,682 (70.2%) were treated. A post-treatment pain score appeared at any time for 77.1% (95% CI, 76.4 to 77.8), but within 2 hours of the analgesic for only 47.9% and within 1 hour for 27.5%. Meaningful relief was 66.9% using the first post-treatment score but 81.0% and 83.4% using the last or lowest score; it was 67.5% under inverse-probability weighting and could be bounded only between 51.8% and 74.4%. Whether a score was recorded was weakly predictable at treatment (area under the curve, 0.566) and unrelated to baseline pain. Completeness was similar across headache strata and comparator painful presentations. In an independent ED (MC-MED, a different EHR), the score-selection effect replicated: relief rose from 71.1% (first) to 80.6% (last) and 83.4% (lowest). Conclusions: Documented pain relief after ED headache treatment was not a stable outcome: it varied with the reassessment window and score-selection rule, was not point-identified for unreassessed patients, and behaved like other painful ED presentations. Programs and research that use documented relief should prespecify the reassessment window, score-selection rule, completeness denominator, and a missing-data range, and favor protocol-timed reassessment.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Incidence of Long-term Post-acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Related to Pain and Other Symptoms: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 90%
- Trends of long-term opioid therapy and subsequent discontinuation among people with chronic non-cancer pain in UK primary care: a retrospective cohort study 89%
- Heterogeneity of Diagnosis and Documentation of Post-COVID Conditions in Primary Care: A Machine Learning Analysis 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Sociodemographically Differential Patterns of Chronic Pain Progression Revealed by Analyzing the All of Us Research Program Data 90%
- Predictability and Stability Testing to Assess Clinical Decision Instrument Performance for Children After Blunt Torso Trauma 87%
- A proposed de-identification framework for a cohort of children presenting at a health facility in Uganda 85%
Similar papers in this journal
- Finding Long-COVID: Temporal Topic Modeling of Electronic Health Records from the N3C and RECOVER Programs 89%
- Novel clinical subphenotypes in COVID-19: derivation, validation, prediction, temporal patterns, and interaction with social determinants of health 87%
- Zero-shot Interpretable Phenotyping of Postpartum Hemorrhage Using Large Language Models 87%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.