ArticleDer Anaesthesist2019
The German version of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool for critically ill adults : A prospective validation study.
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Critical Care Pain Observation Tool for Families (CPOT-Fam).Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2026Article
- Patient-related effects of primary nursing : Protocol of a pilot randomized controlled trial.Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2023Article
- [Summary of two studies on the validation of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) for assessment of pain in intensive care patients incapable of communication].Der Anaesthesist · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe implementation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation tool (CPOT) in intensive care units (ICU) has been associated with more frequent pain assessments, a reduced number of complications, and improved administration of analgesics and sedatives. So far no German translation exists. Translating this tool into foreign languages requires further validation testing.
objectiveThe aim of this prospective observational validation study was to translate the original version of the CPOT according to scientific principles for translation and to establish the validity and reliability of the German translation of CPOT for critically ill adult patients. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 292 cardiac surgery patients from 2 ICUs of 2 German university teaching hospitals were included (114 patients at center 1 and 178 patients at center 2). Of the included patients 22.6% were female and 76.4% were male with a mean age of 68.5 years ±9.3 SD. Pain was evaluated with the CPOT, the Bhavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and with the Numeric Rating scale (NRS) at three time points (1. intubated + sedated, 2. intubated + awake, 3. extubated + awake) at rest and during nociceptive stimulus (positioning). Assessments were made separately by trained physicians and nursing staff.
resultsGood results for interrater reliability and internal consistency could be demonstrated (weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.73, Cronbach's coefficient alpha of 0.8). Spearman correlation between CPOT and NRS was moderate but significant. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to obtain optimal thresholds of CPOT to detect pain revealed different results during rest and stimulus and in intubated and extubated patients.
conclusionThe validated German CPOT translation is a reliable tool for pain assessment in cardiac ICU patients in the absence of patients' ability for self-reporting. The use of this German version of CPOT now allows a better international comparability of corresponding data in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31748831What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.