Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23226449›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2012

A new tool for real-time pain assessment in experimental and clinical environments.

Nils Schaffner, Gerd Folkers, Silvia Käppeli, Markus Musholt, Günther F L Hofbauer, Victor Candia

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nils SchaffnerCollegium Helveticum, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Gerd Folkers
Silvia Käppeli
Markus Musholt
Günther F L Hofbauer
Victor Candia

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pain measurement largely depends on the ability to rate personal subjective pain. Nevertheless, pain scales can be difficult to use during medical procedures. We hypothesized that pain can be expressed intuitively and in real-time by squeezing a pressure sensitive device. We developed such a device called "Painmouse(®)" and tested it on healthy volunteers and patients in two separate studies: Sixteen male participants rated different painful heat stimuli via Painmouse(®) and a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Retest was done one week later. Participants clearly distinguished four distinct pain levels using both methods. Values from the first and second sessions were comparable. Thereafter, we tested the Painmouse(®) by asking twelve female and male leg- ulcer patients to continuously squeeze it during the whole length of their wound-dressing change. Patients rated each step of dressing change on an 11-point numeric rating scale. Painmouse(®) ratings were highest for the wound cleaning and debridement step. Application of the new dressing was not evaluated as very painful. On the other hand, numeric scale ratings did not differentiate between dressing change steps. We conclude that the Painmouse(®) enables pain assessment even under difficult clinical circumstances, such as during a medical treatment in elderly patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBandagesFemaleHumansMalePainPain MeasurementTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID23226449
PMCPMC3511427

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.