Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28070644›Full record

ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2017

[Patient perspective of pain assessment by nursing personnel : Qualitative cross-sectional study on use of the NRS].

L Gerken, A Windisch, R Thalhammer, S Olwitz, E Fay, H Al Hussini, B Reuschenbach

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

L GerkenKatholische Stiftungsfachhochschule München, Preysingstr. 83, 81667, München, Deutschland. lgerken@ksfh-mail.de.
A WindischKatholische Stiftungsfachhochschule München, Preysingstr. 83, 81667, München, Deutschland.
R ThalhammerKatholische Stiftungsfachhochschule München, Preysingstr. 83, 81667, München, Deutschland.
S OlwitzKatholische Stiftungsfachhochschule München, Preysingstr. 83, 81667, München, Deutschland.
E FayKatholische Stiftungsfachhochschule München, Preysingstr. 83, 81667, München, Deutschland.
H Al HussiniKatholische Stiftungsfachhochschule München, Preysingstr. 83, 81667, München, Deutschland.
B ReuschenbachKatholische Stiftungsfachhochschule München, Preysingstr. 83, 81667, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe assessment of pain as a part of adequate pain management is an integral part of the clinical routine. Much research has been carried out concerning use, relevance and validity of different assessment scales; however, patients' perspective of pain assessment has not yet been studied in Germany. The aim of the present study was to collate patients' experiences regarding pain assessment based on the numeric rating scale (NRS). MATERIALS AND

methodsThe survey was conducted as a qualitative cross-sectional study based on the grounded theory methodology by Strauss and Corbin. Interviews were carried out with 15 surgery patients. A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect data. The structured analysis was performed using MAXQDA. Data were first openly coded followed by thematic coding. Finally, the codes were compared and linked via axial coding. The data analysis was completed by object-related theory construction.

resultsPatients have only vague ideas about the consequences of their responses. They experience pain assessment as a nursing routine, which was perceived as being largely insignificant for therapy. On reflection patients sporadically saw the scaling as being a problem as a reference value is missing and the quality of pain as well as the procedure fail the predetermined measurement system. Metric values not only reflect the level of pain but are also intentionally used to enable targeted measures, e.g. discharge from hospital.

conclusionThe survey results indicate that the validity of the measurement and therefore the indicated therapy is influenced by subjective concepts. Patients themselves suggested alternatives for detecting the quality of pain. The data should be replicated in larger samples and also take possible influences on the perception of the assessment into account.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPsychometricsQualitative ResearchReproducibility of ResultsGrounded theoryOutcome, patient reportedPain managementPain measurement, validityReference values

Identifiers

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.