Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34996588›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of anaesthesia2022

Utility of unidimensional and functional pain assessment tools in adult postoperative patients: a systematic review.

Reham M Baamer, Ayesha Iqbal, Dileep N Lobo, Roger D Knaggs, Nicholas A Levy, Li S Toh

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Detecting Feigned Pain Using an Eye-Tracker Integrated Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS).Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Predictive Value of Early Nursing Scores on 90-Day Outcomes in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Reham M BaamerDivision of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; Pharmacy Practice Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, King Abdul-Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ayesha IqbalDivision of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Dileep N LoboNottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, National Institute for Health Research, Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK; MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK. Electronic address: Dileep.Lobo@nottingham.ac.uk.
Roger D KnaggsDivision of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; Pain Centre Versus Arthritis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Nicholas A LevyDepartment of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, West Suffolk Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bury St. Edmunds, UK.
Li S TohDivision of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K00414X/1Medical Research Council MR/P021220/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to appraise the evidence relating to the measurement properties of unidimensional tools to quantify pain after surgery. Furthermore, we wished to identify the tools used to assess interference of pain with functional recovery.

methodsFour electronic sources (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched in August 2020. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.

resultsThirty-one studies with a total of 12 498 participants were included. Most of the studies failed to meet the methodological quality standards required by COSMIN. Studies of unidimensional assessment tools were underpinned by low-quality evidence for reliability (five studies), and responsiveness (seven studies). Convergent validity was the most studied property (13 studies) with moderate to high correlation ranging from 0.5 to 0.9 between unidimensional tools. Interpretability results were available only for the visual analogue scale (seven studies) and numerical rating scale (four studies). Studies on functional assessment tools were scarce; only one study included an 'Objective Pain Score,' a tool assessing pain interference with respiratory function, and it had low-quality for convergent validity.

conclusionsThis systematic review challenges the validity and reliability of unidimensional tools in adult patients after surgery. We found no evidence that any one unidimensional tool has superior measurement properties in assessing postoperative pain. In addition, because promoting function is a crucial perioperative goal, psychometric validation studies of functional pain assessment tools are needed to improve pain assessment and management. CLINICAL

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020213495.

Indexed as

ChecklistPainAdultHumansPain MeasurementPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsCOnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)functional pain assessment toolpain scorespostoperative paintool utilityunidimensional pain assessment

Identifiers

PMID34996588
PMCPMC9074792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.