Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27797872›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2017

A comparison of pain assessment by physicians, parents and children in an outpatient setting.

Christina Brudvik, Svein-Denis Moutte, Valborg Baste, Tone Morken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2017. 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. Virtual reality distraction for acute pain in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Opioid Analgesia Following Pediatric Adenotonsillectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Carers' and paediatric dentists' perceptions of children's pain during restorative treatment.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2020
    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

4 authors.

Christina BrudvikBergen Accident and Emergency Department, Bergen, Norway.
Svein-Denis MoutteBergen Accident and Emergency Department, Bergen, Norway.
Valborg BasteUni Research Health, Bergen, Norway.
Tone MorkenNational Centre for Emergency Primary Health Care, Uni Research Health, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOur objective was to compare pain assessments by patients, parents and physicians in children with different medical conditions, and analyse how this affected the physicians' administration of pain relief. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis cross-sectional study involved 243 children aged 3-15 years treated at Bergen Accident and Emergency Department (ED) in 2011. The child patient's pain intensity was measured using age-adapted scales while parents and physicians did independent numeric rating scale (NRS) assessments.

resultsPhysicians assessed the child's mean pain to be NRS=3.2 (SD 2.0), parents: NRS=4.8 (SD 2.2) and children: NRS=5.5 (SD 2.4). The overall child-parent agreement was moderate (Cohen's weighted κ=0.55), but low between child-physician (κ=0.12) and parent-physician (κ=0.17). Physicians significantly underestimated pain in all paediatric patients ≥3 years old and in all categories of medical conditions. However, the difference in pain assessment between child and physician was significantly lower for fractures (NRS=1.2; 95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) compared to wounds (NRS=3.4; CI 2.2 to 4.5; p=0.001), infections (NRS=3.1; CI 2.2 to 4.0; p=0.002) and soft tissue injuries (NRS=2.4; CI 1.9 to 2.9; p=0.007). The physicians' pain assessment improved with increasing levels of pain, but only 42.1% of children with severe pain (NRS≥7) received pain relief.

conclusionsPaediatric pain was significantly underestimated by ED physicians. In the absence of a self-report from the child, parents' evaluation should be listened to. Despite improved pain assessments in children with fractures and when pain was perceived to be severe, it is worrying that barely half of the children with severe pain received analgesics in the ED.

Indexed as

PerceptionAdolescentAnalgesicsChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleNorwayOutpatientsPain ManagementPain MeasurementParentsPhysiciansAnalgesicsclinical assessmentemergency department managementfractures and dislocationspaediatrics, paediatric injurypain management

Identifiers

PMID27797872
PMCPMC5502236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.