Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25726717›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2014

An international road map to improve pain assessment in people with impaired cognition: the development of the Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC) meta-tool.

Anne Corbett, Wilco Achterberg, Bettina Husebo, Frank Lobbezoo, Henrica de Vet, Miriam Kunz, Liv Strand, Marios Constantinou, Catalina Tudose, Judith Kappesser and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. [Pain in dementia].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

13 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Anne CorbettWolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases, Kings College London, London, UK. anne.corbett@kcl.ac.uk.
Wilco AchterbergDepartment of Public Health and Primary care medicine, Leiden University Medical Center & EU COST Vice-Chair, Leiden, The Netherlands. w.p.achterberg@lumc.nl.
Bettina HuseboDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Elderly and Nursing Home Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Bettina.husebo@igs.uib.no.
Frank LobbezooDepartment of Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. F.lobbezoo@acta.nl.
Henrica de VetDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Hcw.devet@vumc.nl.
Miriam KunzDepartment of Physiological Psychology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany. Miriam.kunz@uni-bamberg.de.
Liv StrandDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Physiotherapy Research Group, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. liv.strand@igs.uib.no.
Marios ConstantinouSocial Sciences Department & Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Psychology (CCBP), University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus. Constantinou.m@unic.ac.cy.
Catalina TudoseDepartment of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Carol Davila", Bucharest, Romania. catalina.tudose52@gmail.com.
Judith KappesserDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany. judith.kappesser@psychol.uni-giessen.de.
Margot de WaalDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. m.w.m.de_waal@lumc.nl.
Stefan LautenbacherDepartment of Physiological Psychology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany. stefan.lautenbacher@uni-bamberg.de.
EU-COST action td 1005 Pain Assessment in Patients with Impaired Cognition, especially Dementia Collaborators: http://www.cost-td1005.net/
Leiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Bamberg · DEUniversity of Bergen · NOAcademic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NLCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy · ROEMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLKing's College London · GBUniversity of Giessen · DEUniversity of Nicosia · CY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPain is common in people with dementia, yet identification is challenging. A number of pain assessment tools exist, utilizing observation of pain-related behaviours, vocalizations and facial expressions. Whilst they have been developed robustly, these often lack sufficient evidence of psychometric properties, like reliability, face and construct validity, responsiveness and usability, and are not internationally implemented. The EU-COST initiative "Pain in impaired cognition, especially dementia" aims to combine the expertise of clinicians and researchers to address this important issue by building on previous research in the area, identifying existing pain assessment tools for dementia, and developing consensus for items for a new universal meta-tool for use in research and clinical settings. This paper reports on the initial phase of this collaboration task.

methodsAll existing observational pain behaviour tools were identified and elements categorised using a three-step reduction process. Selection and refinement of items for the draft Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC) meta-tool was achieved through scrutiny of the evidence, consensus of expert opinion, frequency of use and alignment with the American Geriatric Society guidelines. The main aim of this process was to identify key items with potential empirical, rather than theoretical value to take forward for testing.

results12 eligible assessment tools were identified, and pain items categorised according to behaviour, facial expression and vocalisation according to the AGS guidelines (Domains 1 - 3). This has been refined to create the PAIC meta-tool for validation and further refinement. A decision was made to create a supporting comprehensive toolkit to support the core assessment tool to provide additional resources for the assessment of overlapping symptoms in dementia, including AGS domains four to six, identification of specific types of pain and assessment of duration and location of pain.

conclusionsThis multidisciplinary, cross-cultural initiative has created a draft meta-tool for capturing pain behaviour to be used across languages and culture, based on the most promising items used in existing tools. The draft PAIC meta-tool will now be taken forward for evaluation according to COSMIN guidelines and the EU-COST protocol in order to exclude invalid items, refine included items and optimise the meta-tool.

Indexed as

BehaviorCognitionCognition DisordersConsensusDementiaFacial ExpressionHumansInterpersonal RelationsMotor ActivityMovementNonverbal CommunicationPainPain MeasurementPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsVerbal Behavior

Identifiers

PMID25726717
PMCPMC4279897
OpenAlexW2032345154

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.