Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31397952›Full record

Observational studyNursing in critical care2020

Validating a pain assessment tool in heterogeneous ICU patients: Is it possible?

Christian Emsden, Ursi Barandun Schäfer, Kris Denhaerynck, Florian Grossmann, Irena Anna Frei, Monika Kirsch

Abstract readObservational StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Nursing in critical care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Christian EmsdenMedical Intensive Care Unit, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8776-8028
Ursi Barandun SchäferSurgical Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kris DenhaerynckInstitute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Florian GrossmannDepartment of Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Irena Anna FreiInstitute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Monika KirschInstitute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

Division of Nursing, Department of Medicine, University Hospital Basel
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-communicative adult ICU patients are vulnerable to inadequate pain management with potentially severe consequences. In German-speaking countries, there is limited availability of a validated pain assessment tool for this population.

aimThe aim of this observational study was to test the German version of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in a heterogeneous adult ICU population.

methodsThe CPOT's feasibility for clinical use was evaluated via a questionnaire. For validity and reliability testing, the CPOT was compared with the Behavioural Pain Scale (BPS) and patient's self-report in 60 patients during 480 observations simultaneously performed by two raters.

resultsThe feasibility evaluation demonstrated high satisfaction with clinical usability (85% of responses 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale). The CPOT revealed excellent criterion validity [agreement between CPOT and BPS 94.0%, correlation of CPOT and BPS sum scores r = 0.91 (P < .05), agreement of CPOT with patient self-report 81.4%], good discriminant validity [mean difference of CPOT scores between at rest and non-painful stimulus 0.33 (P < .029), mean difference of CPOT scores between at rest, and painful stimulus 2.19 (P < .001)], for a CPOT cut-off score of >2 a high sensitivity and specificity (93% and 84%), high positive predictive value (85%), and a high negative predictive value (93%). The CPOT showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.79) and high inter-rater reliability [90% agreement, no differences in CPOT sum scores in 64.2% of observations, and correlation for CPOT sum scores r = 0.72 (P < .05)]. Self-report obtained in patients with delirium did not correlate with the CPOT rating in 62% of patients.

conclusionThis is the first validation study of the CPOT evaluating all of the described validity dimensions, including feasibility, at once. The results are congruent with previous validations of the CPOT with homogeneous samples and show that it is possible to validate a tool with a heterogeneous sample. Further research should be done to improve pain assessment and treatment in ICU patients with delirium. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The German CPOT version can be recommended for ICUs in German-speaking countries.

Indexed as

Critical Care NursingCritical IllnessIntensive Care UnitsRespiration, ArtificialAgedFemaleGermanyHumansMalePain MeasurementReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerlandadultCritical-Care Pain Observation Toolintensive carepain assessmentvalidation

Identifiers

PMID31397952

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.