Observational studyPediatric research2021
Assessment of four pain scales for evaluating procedural pain in premature infants undergoing heel blood collection.
Observational study in Pediatric research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical rating scales for assessing pain in newborn infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- [Evidence-based guideline for neonatal pain management in China (2023)].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2023Guideline
- Evaluation of Pain in the Pediatric Patient Admitted to Sub-Intensive Care: What Is the Evidence? A Scoping Review.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Frequency and pain intensity of painful procedures in premature infants hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Correlation of clinical pain scores with cerebral oxygenation in preterm neonates during acute painful procedures: a prospective observational study.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProcedural pain is underestimated in hospitalized preterm infants. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS), Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale, Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), and Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) in premature infants undergoing heel blood collection. We assume that the four scales were similar in reliablility and validity (but different in clinical utility).
methodsThe pain assessments were performed on 111 premature infants using the four scales. Internal consistency was determined by Cronbach's α, and the reliability was determined by the intraclass correlation coefficients. Concurrent validity was evaluated by Spearman's rank correlations. Bland-Altman plots were used to investigate the convergent validity.
resultsThe internal consistency and their reliability of the scales were high (p < 0.001). Scores were significantly higher at the time of blood collection (p < 0.001). Mean scores of clinical utility of PIPP were significantly higher than NFCS and DAN (p < 0.05) but not higher than the NIPS (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe four scales were reliable and valid. This study suggests that the PIPP and NIPS has good clinical utility and are better choice for evaluating procedural pain in premature infants. IMPACT: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of NFCS, DAN, NIPS, and PIPP in premature infants undergoing heel blood collection. The results showed that the four scales have high reliability and internal consistency; the PIPP and NIPS have good clinical utility and are better choice for evaluating procedural pain in premature infants. Our study results provided a reference for clinical workers in choosing pain assessment scales and conduction intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.