Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18279522›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2008

Comparison of different pain scoring systems in critically ill patients in a general ICU.

Sabine J G M Ahlers, Laura van Gulik, Aletta M van der Veen, Hendricus P A van Dongen, Peter Bruins, Svetlana V Belitser, Anthonius de Boer, Dick Tibboel, Catherijne A J Knibbe

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 209 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Low-dose preoperative pregabalin improves postoperative pain management in septorhinoplasty surgery: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2019
    Trial
  6. [Daylight therapy in intensive care units: a review].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sabine J G M AhlersDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, St. Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, Nieuwegein, 3440 EM, The Netherlands. s.ahlers@antonius.net
Laura van Gulik
Aletta M van der Veen
Hendricus P A van Dongen
Peter Bruins
Svetlana V Belitser
Anthonius de Boer
Dick Tibboel
Catherijne A J Knibbe
St. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLUtrecht University · NLErasmus MC - Sophia Children’s Hospital · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPain in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is common. However, pain assessment in critically ill patients often is complicated because these patients are unable to communicate effectively. Therefore, we designed a study (a) to determine the inter-rater reliability of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), (b) to compare pain scores of different observers and the patient, and (c) to compare NRS, BPS, and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for measuring pain in patients in the ICU.

methodsWe performed a prospective observational study in 113 non-paralyzed critically ill patients. The attending nurses, two researchers, and the patient (when possible) obtained 371 independent observation series of NRS, BPS, and VAS. Data analyses were performed on the sample size of patients (n = 113).

resultsInter-rater reliability of the NRS and BPS proved to be adequate (kappa = 0.71 and 0.67, respectively). The level of agreement within one scale point between NRS rated by the patient and NRS scored by attending nurses was 73%. However, high patient scores (NRS > or = 4) were underestimated by nurses (patients 33% versus nurses 18%). In responsive patients, a high correlation between NRS and VAS was found (rs = 0.84, P < 0.001). In ventilated patients, a moderate positive correlation was found between the NRS and the BPS (rs = 0.55, P < 0.001). However, whereas 6% of the observations were NRS of greater than or equal to 4, BPS scores were all very low (median 3.0, range 3.0 to 5.0).

conclusionThe different scales show a high reliability, but observer-based evaluation often underestimates the pain, particularly in the case of high NRS values (> or = 4) rated by the patient. Therefore, whenever this is possible, ICU patients should rate their pain. In unresponsive patients, primarily the attending nurse involved in daily care should score the patient's pain. In ventilated patients, the BPS should be used only in conjunction with the NRS nurse to measure pain levels in the absence of painful stimuli.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessNursing AssessmentAgedFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleObserver VariationPain MeasurementProcedural SedationProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID18279522
PMCPMC2374638
OpenAlexW1966858890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.