Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25972247›Full record

SynthesisJournal of feline medicine and surgery2016

Systematic review of the behavioural assessment of pain in cats.

Isabella Merola, Daniel S Mills

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Dental Pain in Cats: A Prospective 6-Month Study.Journal of veterinary dentistry · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Methods of Assessment of the Welfare of Shelter Cats: A Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Persistence of pain in humans and other mammals.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors.

Isabella MerolaSchool of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK imerola@lincoln.ac.uk.
Daniel S MillsSchool of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objectives were to review systematically the range of assessment tools used in cats to detect the behavioural expression of pain and the evidence of their quality; and to examine behavioural metrics (considering both the sensory and affective domains) used to assess pain.

methodsA search of PubMed and ScienceDirect, alongside articles known to the authors, from 2000 onwards, for papers in English was performed. This was followed by a manual search of the references within the primary data sources. Only peer-reviewed publications that provided information on the assessment tool used to evaluate the behavioural expression of pain in cats, in conscious animals (not anaesthetised cats), were included.

resultsNo previous systematic reviews were identified. One hundred papers were included in the final assessment. Studies were primarily related to the assessment of pain in relation to surgical procedures, and no clear distinction was made concerning the onset of acute and chronic pain. Ten broad types of instrument to assess pain were identified, and generally the quality of evidence to support the use of the various instruments was poor. Only one specific instrument (UNESP-Botucatu scale) had published evidence of validity, reliability and sensitivity at the level of a randomised control trial, but with a positive rather than placebo control, and limited to its use in the ovariohysterectomy situation. The metrics used within the tools appeared to focus primarily on the sensory aspect of pain, with no study clearly discriminating between the sensory and affective components of pain. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Further studies are required to provide a higher quality of evidence for methods used to assess pain in cats. Furthermore, a consistent definition for acute and chronic pain is needed. Tools need to be validated that can detect pain in a range of conditions and by different evaluators (veterinary surgeons and owners), which consider both the sensory and emotional aspects of pain.

Indexed as

AnimalsCat DiseasesCatsChronic PainPain ManagementPain MeasurementReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID25972247
PMCPMC11149010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.