Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28724434›Full record

Observational studyBMC pediatrics2017

Individual contextual factors in the validation of the Bernese pain scale for neonates: protocol for a prospective observational study.

Eva Cignacco, Karin Schenk, Bonnie Stevens, Liliane Stoffel, Dirk Bassler, Sven Schulzke, Mathias Nelle

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. [Pain therapy for premature babies and neonates].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2018
    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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Eva CignaccoHealth Department, Midwifery Discipline, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Murtenstrasse 10, 3008, Bern, Switzerland. eva.cignacco@bfh.ch.
Karin SchenkHealth Department, Midwifery Discipline, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Murtenstrasse 10, 3008, Bern, Switzerland.
Bonnie StevensLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Liliane StoffelNeonatalogy, Children's Hospital, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Dirk BasslerDepartment of Neonatology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sven SchulzkeDepartment of Neonatology, University of Basel Children's Hospital (UKBB), Basel, Switzerland.
Mathias NelleDepartment of Neonatology, Children's University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
Bern University of Applied Sciences · CHUniversity Children’s Hospital Bern · CHUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Basel · CHUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates (BPSN) is a multidimensional pain assessment tool that is already widely used in clinical settings in the German speaking areas of Europe. Recent findings indicate that pain responses in preterm neonates are influenced by individual contextual factors, such as gestational age (GA), gender and the number of painful procedures experienced. Currently, the BPSN does not consider individual contextual factors. Therefore, the aim of this study is the validation of the BPSN using a large sample of neonates with different GAs. Furthermore, the influence of individual contextual factors on the variability in pain reactions across GA groups will be explored. The results will be used for a modification of the BPSN to account for individual contextual factors in future clinical pain assessment in neonates. METHODS AND

designThis prospective multisite validation study with a repeated measures design will take place in three university hospital neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Switzerland (Bern, Basel and Zurich). To examine the impact of GA on pain responses and their variability, the infants will be stratified into six GA groups ranging from 24 0/7 to 42 0/7. Among preterm infants, 2-5 routine capillary heel sticks within the first 14 days of life, and among full-term infants, two heel sticks during the first days of life will be documented. For each heel stick, measurements will be video recorded for each of three phases: baseline, heel stick, and recovery. The infants' pain responses will be rated according to the BPSN by five nurses who are blinded as to the number of each heel stick and as to the measurement phases. Individual contextual factors of interest will be extracted from patient charts. DISCUSSION: Understanding and considering the influence of individual contextual factors on pain responses in a revised version of the BPSN will help the clinical staff to more appropriately assess pain in neonates, particularly preterm neonates hospitalized in NICUs. Pain assessment is a first step toward appropriate and efficient pain management, which itself is an important factor in later motor and cognitive development in this vulnerable patient population.

trial registrationThe study is registered in the database of Clinical Trial gov. Study ID-number: NCT 02749461 . Registration date: 12 April 2016.

Indexed as

Blood Specimen CollectionClinical ProtocolsFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureMalePainPain MeasurementProspective StudiesPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityContextual factorsDiagnosticPain assessmentPremature infants

Identifiers

PMID28724434
PMCPMC5518104
OpenAlexW2737273266

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.