The Athenian Calendar of Sacrifices: A New Fragment from the Athenian Agora

Presented here is the editio princeps of a new fragment of the late-5th-century b.c. Athenian calendar of sacrifices. The fragment, Agora 17577, was discovered during excavations conducted in the Athenian Agora by the American School of Classical Studies. Inscribed on both faces (Face A: 403-399 b.c., Face B: 410-404 b.c.), it is associated with, but does not join, the group of fragments of Athenian legal inscriptions often referred to as the Law Code of Nikomachos. The text provides important additional evidence for the form of the calendar and the manner of its publication, and casts new light on broader issues of Athenian cult and topography

Heliyon

Purpose: Restraint is often used when administering procedures to children. However, no metrologically scale to measure the restraint intensity had yet been validated. This study validated the metrological criteria of a scale measuring the restraint intensity, Procedural Restraint Intensity in Children (PRIC), used during procedures in children. Design and methods: The PRIC scale performance was measured by a group of 7 health professionals working in a children's hospital, by watching 20 videos of health care procedures. This group included 2 physicians, 1 pediatric resident, and 4 nurses. The intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the inter-rater and test-retest reliability and the construct validity with the correlation between PRIC scale and a numerical rating scale. Results: One hundred and forty measurements were made. Inter-rater and test-retest correlation coefficients were 0.98 and 0.98, respectively. The 2 scales were positively correlated with a Spearman coefficient of 0.93. Conclusions: This study validated the Procedural Restraint Intensity in Children (PRIC) scale in metrological terms with some limitation. However, there is not gold standard scale to precisely validate the reliability of this tool and this study has been conducted in "experimental" conditions. Nevertheless, this is the first scale measuring the intensity of physical restraint with a metrological validation. The next step will be to validate it in real clinical situations

Electronic and paper versions of a faces pain intensity scale: concordance and preference in hospitalized children

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Assessment of pain in children is an important aspect of pain management and can be performed by observational methods or by self-assessment. The Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) is a self-report tool which has strong positive correlations with other well established self-report pain intensity measures. It has been recommended for measuring pain intensity in school-aged children (4 years and older). The objective of this study is to compare the concordance and the preference for two versions, electronic and paper, of the FPS-R, and to determine whether an electronic version of the FPS-R can be used by children aged 4 and older.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study is an observational, multicenter, randomized, cross-over, controlled, open trial. Medical and surgical patients in two pediatric hospitals (N = 202, age 4-12 years, mean age 8.3 years, 58% male) provided self-reports of their present pain using the FPS-R on a personal digital assistant (PDA) and on a paper version. Paper and electronic versions of the FPS-R were administered by a nurse in a randomized order: half the patients were given the PDA version first and the other half the paper version first. The time between the administrations was planned to be less than 30 minutes but not simultaneous. Two hundred and thirty-seven patients were enrolled; 35 were excluded from analysis because of misunderstanding of instructions or abnormal time between the two assessments.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Final population for analysis comprised 202 children. The overall weighted Kappa was 0.846 (95%CI: 0.795; 0.896) and the Spearman correlation between scores on the two versions was r_s= 0.911 (p < 0.0001). The mean difference of pain scores was less than 0.1 out of 10, which was neither statistically nor clinically significant; 83.2% of children chose the same face on both versions of the FPS-R. Preference was not modified by order, sex, age, hospitalization unit (medical or surgical units), or previous analgesics. The PDA was preferred by 87.4% of the children who expressed a preference.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The electronic version of the FPS-R can be recommended for use with children aged 4 to 12, either in clinical trials or in hospitals to monitor pain intensity.</p

Gabapentin as add-on to morphine for severe neuropathic or mixed pain in children from age 3 months to 18 years - Evaluation of the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of a new gabapentin liquid formulation: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Gabapentin has shown efficacy in the treatment of chronic neuropathic or mixed pain in adults. Although pediatric pain specialists have extensive experience with gabapentin for the treatment of neuropathic pain, its use is off-label. Its efficacy and safety in this context have never been shown. The aim of this trial is to compare gabapentin with placebo as add-on to morphine for the treatment of severe chronic mixed or neuropathic pain in children. This trial is part of the European Union Seventh Framework Programme project Gabapentin in Paediatric Pain (GAPP) to develop a pediatric use marketing authorization for a new gabapentin suspension. Methods/design: The GAPP-2 study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter superiority phase II study in children with severe chronic neuropathic or mixed pain. Its primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of a gabapentin liquid formulation as adjunctive therapy to morphine. Sixty-six eligible children 3 months to 18 years of age with severe pain (pain scores ≥ 7), stratified in three age groups, will be randomized to receive gabapentin (to an accumulating dose of 45 to 63 mg/kg/day, dependent on age) or placebo, both in addition to morphine, for 12 weeks. Randomization will be preceded by a short washout period, and treatment will be initiated by a titration period of 3 weeks. After the treatment period, medication will be tapered during 4 weeks. The primary endpoint is the average pain scores in the two treatment groups (average of two measures each day for 3 days before the end-of-study visit [V10] assessed by age-appropriate pain scales (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale; Faces Pain Scale-Revised; Numeric Rating Scale). Secondary outcomes include percentage responders to treatment (subjects with 30% reduction in pain scale), number of episodes of breakthrough pain, number of rescue interventions, number of pain-free days, participant dropouts, quality of life (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory), and acceptability of treatment. Outcomes will be measured at the end-of-study visit after 12 weeks of treatment at the optimal gabapentin dose. Groups will be compared on an intention-to-treat basis. Discussion: We hope to provide evidence that the combination of morphine and gabapentin will provide better analgesia than morphine alone and will be safe. We also aim to obtain confirmation of the recommended pediatric dose. Trial registration: EudractCT, 2014-004897-40. Registered on 7 September 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03275012. Registered on 7 September 2017

The research gap in chronic paediatric pain: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Background and Objective: Chronic pain is associated with significant functional and social impairment. The objective of this review was to assess the characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pain management interventions in children and adolescents with chronic pain. Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to July 2017. We included RCTs that involved children and adolescents (3 months-18 years) and evaluated the use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention(s) in the context of pain persisting or re-occurring for more than 3 months. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) Tool. Results: A total of 58 RCTs were identified and numbers steadily increased over time. The majority were conducted in single hospital institutions, with no information on study funding. Median sample size was 47.5 participants (Q1,Q3: 32, 70). Forty-five percent of RCTs included both adults and children and the median of the mean ages at inclusion was 12.9 years (Q1,Q3: 11, 15). Testing of non-pharmacological interventions was predominant and only 5 RCTs evaluated analgesics or co-analgesics. Abdominal pain, headache/migraine and musculoskeletal pain were the most common types of chronic pain among participants. Methodological quality was poor with 90% of RCTs presenting a high or unclear ROB. Conclusions: Evaluation of analgesics targeting chronic pain relief in children and adolescents through RCTs is marginal. Infants and children with long-lasting painful conditions are insufficiently represented in RCTs. We discuss possible research constraints and challenges as well as methodologies to circumvent them. Significance: There is a substantial research gap regarding analgesic interventions for children and adolescents with chronic pain. Most clinical trials in the field focus on the evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions and are of low methodological quality. There is also a specific lack of trials involving infants and children and adolescents with long-lasting diseases

Utilisation pratique des anesthésiques locaux chez l'enfant

Simple techniques of local analgesia applicable in children either in the medical office or in the emergency room by non-specialist practitioners are described: infiltration of the skin, topical anaesthesia of the skin, whether intact or damaged, topical anaesthesia of the mucosae... In addition safety rules, early signs and treatment of local anaesthetics intoxication are underlined. (C) 2001 Editions scientifiques et medicales Elsevier SAS