Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29851854›Full record

Observational studyMedicine2018

Use of the critical-care pain observation tool and the bispectral index for the detection of pain in brain-injured patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: A STROBE-compliant observational study.

Kai Shan, Wei Cao, Yuan Yuan, Jing-Jing Hao, Xiu-Mei Sun, Xuan He, Gui-Yun Li, Yu-Mei Wang, Jian-Xin Zhou

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Consensus Statement on Analgo-sedation in Neurocritical Care and Review of Literature.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021
    Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kai ShanEmergency Department Department of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Wei Cao
Yuan Yuan
Jing-Jing Hao
Xiu-Mei Sun
Xuan He
Gui-Yun Li
Yu-Mei Wang
Jian-Xin Zhou
Beijing Tian Tan Hospital · CNCapital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assessment of pain in patients with brain injury is challenging due to impaired ability to communicate. We aimed to test the reliability and validity of the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) and the bispectral index (BIS) for pain detection in critically brain-injured patients.This prospective observational study was conducted in a neurosurgical intensive care unit in a University-Affiliated Hospital. Adult brain-injured patients undergoing mechanical ventilation were enrolled. Nociceptive (endotracheal suctioning) and non-nociceptive (gentle touching) procedures were performed in a random crossover fashion. Before and immediately after the procedure, CPOT was evaluated by 2 residents and 2 chief nurses, and BIS was documented. The ability to self-report pain was also assessed. The inter-observer reliability of CPOT was analyzed. The criterion and discriminant validities of the CPOT and the BIS were tested.During the study, we enrolled 400 brain-injured patients. The ability to self-report pain was maintained in 214 (54%) and 218 (55%) patients during suctioning and gentle touching, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) for inter-observer reliability of CPOT ranged from 0.86 (0.83-0.89) to 0.93 (0.91-0.94). Using self-reported pain as the reference, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% confidence interval) was 0.84 (0.80-0.88) for CPOT and 0.76 (0.72-0.81) for BIS. When the 2 instruments were combined as either CPOT ≥2 or BIS ≥88 after the procedure, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (0.85-0.93) and 0.59 (0.52-0.66), respectively; and when the 2 instruments were combined as both CPOT ≥2 and BIS ≥88, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.62 (0.55-0.68) and 0.89 (0.83-0.93). Both CPOT and BIS increased significantly after suctioning (all P < .001) but remained unchanged after gentle touching (P ranging from .06 to .14).Our criterion and discriminant validity results supported the use of CPOT and BIS to detect pain in critically brain-injured patients. Combining use of CPOT and BIS in different ways might provide comprehensive pain assessment for different purposes.

Indexed as

AdultBrain InjuriesConsciousness MonitorsCritical CareCritical IllnessCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationPainPain MeasurementProspective StudiesReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID29851854
PMCPMC6392730
OpenAlexW2805518410

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.