SynthesisBMC pediatrics2023
Pain assessment tools for use in infants: a meta-review.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sucrose analgesia for venepuncture in neonates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical rating scales for assessing pain in newborn infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Methods of Assessing Postoperative Pain in Infants (0-12 Months): A Scoping Review.Paediatric & neonatal pain · 2026Review
- Acute Pain Management in Children: A Systematic Review and GRADE-Based Recommendations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Automated monitoring in clinical and operational workflows.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- A Factor Analysis of the COMFORTneo Scale: What Are We Measuring?Paediatric & neonatal pain · 2026Article
- Pain assessment in non-verbal children with neurocognitive impairment: a review on current tools, challenges, and clinical perspectives.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) Implementation in Maternal and Child Health: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Pain Measurement in Infants and Children With and at Risk for Intellectual Disabilities.Paediatric & neonatal pain · 2025Review
- Continuous wireless sensor monitoring with applied diagnostics: Clinical Sensor Pain Scale and Automated Sensor Pain Scale in the NICU.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Neonatal intensive care nurses' assessment of preterm infants' pain and sedation: inter-rater reliability of the neonatal pain, agitation, and sedation scale.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Parental Assessment of Postsurgical Pain in Infants at Home Using Artificial Intelligence-Enabled and Observer-Based Tools: Construct Validity and Clinical Utility Evaluation Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2024Article
- Review
- Predicting postoperative pain in children: an observational study using the pain threshold Index.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Why Do Nurses Fail to Implement Pain Assessment Instruments for Hospitalized Infants?Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
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
backgroundIdentifying pain in infants is challenging due to their inability to self-report pain, therefore the availability of valid and reliable means of assessing pain is critical.
objectiveThis meta-review sought to identify evidence that could guide the selection of appropriate tools in this vulnerable population.
methodsWe searched Scopus, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, MIDRIS, EMCare and Google Scholar for eligible systematic reviews. Eligible reviews documented psychometric properties of available observational tools used to assess pain in infants.
resultsA total of 516 reviews were identified of which 11 met our inclusion criteria. We identified 36 pain assessment tools (evaluated in 11 reviews) of which seven were reported in at least three reviews. The level of evidence reported on the psychometric properties of pain assessment tools varied widely ranging from low to good reliability and validity, whilst there are limited data on usability and clinical utility.
conclusionsCurrently, no observer administered pain assessment tool can be recommended as the gold standard due to limited availability and quality of the evidence that supports their validity, reliability and clinical utility. This meta-review attempts to collate the available evidence to assist clinicians to decide on what is the most appropriate tool to use in their clinical practice setting. It is important that researchers adopt a standard approach to evaluating the psychometric properties of pain assessment tools and evaluations of the clinical utility in order that the highest level of evidence can be used to guide tool selection.
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.