ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2020
[From external assessment of pain to automated multimodal measurement of pain intensity : Narrative review of state of research and clinical perspectives].
Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2020. 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.
- Deep learning for video-based automated pain recognition in rabbits.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The impact of analgesic on EMG and other biosignals in a postoperative setting.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- "What About Automated Pain Recognition for Routine Clinical Use?" A Survey of Physicians and Nursing Staff on Expectations, Requirements, and Acceptance.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with limited communication skills, the use of conventional scales or external assessment is only possible to a limited extent or not at all. Multimodal pain recognition based on artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms could be a solution.
objectiveOverview of the methods of automated multimodal pain measurement and their recognition rates that were calculated with AI algorithms.
methodsIn April 2018, 101 studies on automated pain recognition were found in the Web of Science database to illustrate the current state of research. A selective literature review with special consideration of recognition rates of automated multimodal pain measurement yielded 14 studies, which are the focus of this review.
resultsThe variance in recognition rates was 52.9-55.0% (pain threshold) and 66.8-85.7%; in nine studies the recognition rate was ≥80% (pain tolerance), while one study reported recognition rates of 79.3% (pain threshold) and 90.9% (pain tolerance).
conclusionPain is generally recorded multimodally, based on external observation scales. With regard to automated pain recognition and on the basis of the 14 selected studies, there is to date no conclusive evidence that multimodal automated pain recognition is superior to unimodal pain recognition. In the clinical context, multimodal pain recognition could be advantageous, because this approach is more flexible. In the case of one modality not being available, e.g., electrodermal activity in hand burns, the algorithm could use other modalities (video) and thus compensate for missing information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32382799What 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.