Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25519741›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2014

Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools.

Valentina Lichtner, Dawn Dowding, Philip Esterhuizen, S José Closs, Andrew F Long, Anne Corbett, Michelle Briggs

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
20.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

102 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 291 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Systematic Review Evaluating Pain Assessment Strategies for Patients With Dementia in the Emergency Department: The Geriatric ED Guidelines 2.0.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Algorithm-based pain management for people with dementia in nursing homes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Valentina LichtnerSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. v.lichtner@leeds.ac.uk.
Dawn Dowding
Philip Esterhuizen
S José Closs
Andrew F Long
Anne Corbett
Michelle Briggs
University of Leeds · GBKing's College London · GBLeeds Beckett University · GBVisiting Nurse Service of New York · US

Funding

Department of Health 11/2000/05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is evidence of under-detection and poor management of pain in patients with dementia, in both long-term and acute care. Accurate assessment of pain in people with dementia is challenging and pain assessment tools have received considerable attention over the years, with an increasing number of tools made available. Systematic reviews on the evidence of their validity and utility mostly compare different sets of tools. This review of systematic reviews analyses and summarises evidence concerning the psychometric properties and clinical utility of pain assessment tools in adults with dementia or cognitive impairment.

methodsWe searched for systematic reviews of pain assessment tools providing evidence of reliability, validity and clinical utility. Two reviewers independently assessed each review and extracted data from them, with a third reviewer mediating when consensus was not reached. Analysis of the data was carried out collaboratively. The reviews were synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach.

resultsWe retrieved 441 potentially eligible reviews, 23 met the criteria for inclusion and 8 provided data for extraction. Each review evaluated between 8 and 13 tools, in aggregate providing evidence on a total of 28 tools. The quality of the reviews varied and the reporting often lacked sufficient methodological detail for quality assessment. The 28 tools appear to have been studied in a variety of settings and with varied types of patients. The reviews identified several methodological limitations across the original studies. The lack of a 'gold standard' significantly hinders the evaluation of tools' validity. Most importantly, the samples were small providing limited evidence for use of any of the tools across settings or populations.

conclusionsThere are a considerable number of pain assessment tools available for use with the elderly cognitive impaired population. However there is limited evidence about their reliability, validity and clinical utility. On the basis of this review no one tool can be recommended given the existing evidence.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDementiaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainPain MeasurementReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID25519741
PMCPMC4289543
OpenAlexW1662334039

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.