Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35005219›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient experience2022

Acute Pain Assessment Inadequacy in the Emergency Department: Patients' Perspective.

Jenni Hämäläinen, Tarja Kvist, Päivi Kankkunen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient experience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Digital Pain Assessment: Patient and Family Perspectives.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Special consideration for pain management in the older person.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022
    Review
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

3 authors.

Jenni HämäläinenDepartment of Nursing Science, Finland University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0821-9915
Tarja KvistDepartment of Nursing Science, Finland University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Päivi KankkunenDepartment of Nursing Science, Finland University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many patients, acute pain is a common cause to seek treatment in an Emergency Department (ED). An inadequate assessment could cause inappropriate pain management. The aim of this study was to describe and explain patients' perceptions of acute pain assessment in the Emergency Department. The data were collected from ED patients (n = 114). Patients reported that nurses were asking about intensity of pain at rest, but only 52% during movement. According to the patients, the most common tools to assess acute pain were the verbal rating scale (VRS; 54% of patients), numerical rating scale (NRS; 28% of patients), and visual analogue scale (VAS; 9.7% of patients). Over twenty per cent of patients stated that ED nurses did not ask about the intensity of pain after analgesic administration. Twenty-four per cent of the patients were not pleased with nursing pain assessment in the ED. The assessment of acute pain is still inadequate in the ED. Therefore, ED nurses need to be more attentive to systematic acute pain management of patients in the ED.

Indexed as

acute painemergency departmentpain assessmentpain managementpatient

Identifiers

PMID35005219
PMCPMC8733361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.