Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36566097›Full record

ArticleBurns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries2023

Defining numerical cut points for mild, moderate, and severe pain in adult burn survivors: A northwest regional burn model system investigation.

Gretchen J Carrougher, Alyssa M Bamer, Stephanie Mason, Barclay T Stewart, Nicole S Gibran

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Practice guideline for adult burn rehabilitation nursing (2026 edition)].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gretchen J CarrougherUW Medicine Regional Burn Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: carrough@uw.edu.
Alyssa M BamerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Stephanie MasonRoss Tilley Burn Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Barclay T StewartUW Medicine Regional Burn Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nicole S GibranUW Medicine Regional Burn Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
University of Washington · USHarborview Injury Prevention and Research Center · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

ACL HHS 90DPBU0004ACL HHS 90DPGE0004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPain is a common and often debilitating sequela of burn injury. Burn pain develops following damage to peripheral sensory nerves and the release of inflammatory mediators from injury. Burn pain is complex and can include background and procedural pain that result from the injury itself, wound care, stretching, and surgery. Clinicians and researchers need valid and reliable pain measures to guide screening, treatment, and research protocols. Unlike other conditions, visual analog, or numeric pain rating scale (VAS/NRS) scores that represent mild, moderate, and severe pain among people with burn injury have not been established. The aim of this study was to identify the most suitable average pain intensity rating scores for mild, moderate, and severe pain in adult burn survivors using a PROMIS Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) short form.

methodsAn average pain intensity VAS/NRS score (0-10) and customized PROMIS-PI short form were administered to adults with burn injury treated at a regional burn center at hospital discharge (baseline) and at 6, 12, and 24-months after injury. To identify pain intensity scores that represent mild, moderate, and severe pain, we computed F values and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) statistics associated with multiple ANOVA comparisons for mean pain interference scores by various pain intensity cut points. Six possible cut points (CP) were compared: CP 3,6; 3,7; 4,6; 4,7; 2,5; and 3,5. Optimal cut points were considered those with the highest ANOVA F statistics. Models with similar F statistics were also compared with BIC.

resultsData from a sample of 253 participants (83% white, 66% male, mean age 47 years) with VAS/NRS pain intensity and PROMIS-PI scores at one or more timepoints were analyzed. The optimal classification for mild, moderate, and severe pain was CP 2,5 at baseline and 12-months. Although CP 3,6 had the highest F value at 6-months, there was not strong evidence to support CP 3,6 over CP 2,5 (BIC difference: 2.9); similarly, CP 3,7 had the highest value at 24-months, but the BIC difference over CP 2,5 was only 2.2.

conclusionsVAS/NRS scores for pain among adults with burn injury can be categorized as mild (0-2), moderate (3-5), and severe (6-10). These findings advance our understanding regarding the meaning of pain intensity ratings after burn injury, and provide an objective definition for clinical management, quality improvement, and pain research.

Indexed as

BurnsProcedural PainAdultBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainPain MeasurementBurn injuryNRSNumeric rating salePain intensityPROMIS pain interferenceVASVisual analog scale

Identifiers

PMID36566097
PMCPMC11164406
OpenAlexW4312140283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.