ArticleBMC anesthesiology2024
Behavioral pain scale may not be reliable in awake non-verbal intensive care patients: a case control study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pain Measurement in Critically Ill Non-Verbal Patients With Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.Nursing in critical care · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond the Numerical Rating Scale: Comprehensive Pain Assessment in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit.Journal of perianesthesia nursing : official journal of the American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses · 2026Article
- Validation and reliability of the Tracheostoma Well-Being Score (TWBS) in critically ill patients.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evaluation of pain in patients, unable of oral communication, often relies on behavioral assessment. However, some critically ill patients, while non-verbal, are awake and have some potential for self-reporting. The objective was to compare the results of a behavioral pain assessment with self-reporting in awake, non-verbal, critically ill patients unable to use low-tech augmentative and alternative communication tools.
methodsProspective cohort study of intubated or tracheotomized adult, ventilated patients with a RASS (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) of -1 to + 1 and inadequate non-verbal communication skills in a surgical intensive care unit of a tertiary care university hospital. For pain assessment, the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) was used. Self-reporting of pain was achieved by using an eye tracking device to evaluate the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the pain/discomfort item of the EuroQol EQ-5D-5 L (EQ-Pain). All measurements were taken at rest.
resultsData was collected from 75 patients. Neither the NRS nor the EQ-Pain (r < .15) correlated with the BPS. However, NRS and EQ-Pain were significantly correlated (r = .78, p = < 0.001), indicating the reliability of the self-reporting by these patients. Neither the duration of intubation/tracheostomy, nor cause for ICU treatment, nor BPS subcategories had an influence on these results.
conclusionsBehavioral pain assessment tools in non-verbal patients who are awake and not in delirium appear unreliable in estimating pain during rest. Before a behavioral assessment tool such as the BPS is used, the application of high-tech AACs should be strongly considered.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register, Registration number: DRKS00021233. Registered 23 April 2020 - Retrospectively registered, https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00021233 .
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.