Observational studyIntensive care medicine2014
Behavioral changes in brain-injured critical care adults with different levels of consciousness during nociceptive stimulation: an observational study.
Observational study in Intensive care medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sleuthing subjectivity: a review of covert measures of consciousness.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2025Review
- Interrater Agreement between Bedside and Video Raters Using the CPOT-Neuro for Pain Assessment in Critically Ill Patients with a Brain Injury.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Validation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool-Neuro in brain-injured adults in the intensive care unit: a prospective cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Nociception Using Quantitative Pupillometry and Skin Conductance in Critically Ill Unconscious Patients: A Pilot Study.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Behavioral Pain Indicators in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury Admitted to an Intensive Care Unit.Journal of caring sciences · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary objective of this study was to describe the frequency of behaviors observed during rest, a non-nociceptive procedure, and a nociceptive procedure in brain-injured intensive care unit (ICU) patients with different levels of consciousness (LOC). Second, it examined the inter-rater reliability and discriminant and concurrent validity of the behavioral checklist used.
methodsThe non-nociceptive procedure involved calling the patient and shaking his/her shoulder. The nociceptive procedure involved turning the patient. The frequency of behaviors was recorded using a behavioral checklist.
resultsPatients with absence of movement, or stereotyped flexion or extension responses to a nociceptive stimulus displayed more behaviors during turning (median 5.5, range 0-14) than patients with localized responses (median 4, range 0-10) or able to self-report their pain (median 4, range 0-10). Face flushing, clenched teeth, clenched fist, and tremor were more frequent in patients with absence of movement, or stereotyped responses to a nociceptive stimulus. The reliability of the checklist was supported by a high intra-class correlation coefficient (0.77-0.92), and the internal consistency was acceptable in all three groups (KR 20, 0.71-0.85). Discriminant validity was supported as significantly more behaviors were observed during nociceptive stimulation than at rest. Concurrent validity was confirmed as checklist scores were correlated to the patients' self-reports of pain (r s = 0.53; 95 % CI 0.21-0.75).
conclusionBrain-injured patients reacted significantly more during a nociceptive stimulus and the number of observed behaviors was higher in patients with a stereotyped response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.