ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2023
[Pain assessment during birth : Which assessment tools comprehensibly depict the labor pains during physiological birth?]
Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rethinking Pain Assessment: Subjective Scales, Biomarkers, and Multimodal Integration.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Commentary on "Nonpharmacological Methods to Reduce Pain During Active Labor in a Real-life Setting".Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLabor pain is a complex phenomenon, which is influenced by many factors. Therefore, an effective pain management during birth requires an assessment of the labor pains; however, there is currently no standardized and valid tool to assess labor pains.
objectiveThe aim of this article is to demonstrate which assessment instruments are available for labor pains during a physiological birth and how comprehensibly they depict the pain. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study is an integrative review of the literature based on a literature search conducted in the electronic databases PubMed and CINAHL. To ensure the quality of the review article, COSMIN, AMSTAR 2 and the instrument for assessment of qualitative research of the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN) were used as assessment instruments.
resultsTaking the various inclusion and exclusion criteria into consideration, five studies could be included. The following assessment instruments were identified: visual analog scale (VAS), the acceptance symptom assessment scale (ASAS), the angle labor pain questionnaire (A-LPQ), the rating scale of pain expression during childbirth (Escala de Valoración de la Expresión del Dolor durante el Trabajo de Parto, ESVADPA) and the coping with labor pain algorithm (CWLA). These were supplemented by a study on the perspectives of women.
conclusionNone of the assessment instruments found could assess the birth pain in its full complexity. Therefore, midwives have to rely on their competence to evaluate labor pain on an individual basis. Further research is necessary to identify the relevant influencing factors of labor pains and to be able to develop suitable instruments.
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.