SynthesisNursing open2021
Comparison of two behavioural pain scales for the assessment of procedural pain: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of two behavioural pain scales for the assessment of procedural pain: A systematic review.Nursing open · 2021Pooled it
- Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Indonesian version of the Critical-care Pain Observation Tool.International journal of nursing sciences · 2024Article
- Surgery patients' perspectives of their role in postoperative pain: A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2023Article
- Verbal Communication with the Patient Is Not Enough: The Six Languages of the Sick.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2022Article
- Pain Assessment with the BPS and CCPOT Behavioral Pain Scales in Mechanically Ventilated Patients Requiring Analgesia and Sedation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Tools Are Needed to Promote Sedation Practices for Mechanically Ventilated Patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo examine the clinical utility and measurement properties of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool and the Behavioural Pain Scale when used to assess pain during procedures in the intensive care unit.
designA systematic review was conducted, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsychINFO (01 October 2019). Study selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed by a pair of authors working independently. Different psychometric properties were addressed: inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discriminant validity and criterion validity.
resultsEleven studies were included. Both Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool and the Behavioural Pain Scale showed good reliability and validity and were good options for assessing pain during painful procedures with intensive care unit patients unable to self-report on pain. The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool is to be preferred since this tool was shown to have particularly good reliability and validity in assessing pain during procedures, but the Behavioural Pain Scale is an appropriate alternative.
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.