Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39237887›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2024

Validity and reliability of the Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition 15 (PAIC15) observation scale in persons with aphasia.

N J de Vries, H J A Smaling, J T van der Steen, W P Achterberg

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

N J de VriesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, Hippocratespad 21, Zone V0-P, Leiden, 2300 RC, the Netherlands. n.j.de_vries@lumc.nl.
H J A SmalingDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, Hippocratespad 21, Zone V0-P, Leiden, 2300 RC, the Netherlands.
J T van der SteenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, Hippocratespad 21, Zone V0-P, Leiden, 2300 RC, the Netherlands.
W P AchterbergDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, Hippocratespad 21, Zone V0-P, Leiden, 2300 RC, the Netherlands.

Funding

Zorgondersteuningsfonds PROM-6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of self-report pain scales in persons with aphasia can be challenging due to communication and cognitive problems, while for assessing pain self-report pain is considered the gold standard (Harrison RA, Field TS. Post stroke pain: identification, assessment, and therapy. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;39(3-4):190-201.). An observational scale may be used as an alternative. This study examines the validity and reliability of the observational Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC15) scale in persons with aphasia.

methodsPersons with aphasia were observed during rest and transfer by two observers using the PAIC15. The PAIC15 comprises 15 items covering the three domains of facial expressions, body movements, and vocalizations. When able, the participant completed four self-report pain scales after each observation. The observations were repeated within one week. For criterion validity, correlations between the PAIC15 and self-report pain scales were calculated and for construct validity, three hypotheses were tested. Reliability was determined by assessing internal consistency, and intra- and interobserver agreement.

resultsPAIC15 observations were obtained for 71 persons (mean age 75.5 years) with aphasia. Fair positive correlations (rest: 0.35-0.50; transfer: 0.38-0.43) were reported between PAIC15 and almost all self-report pain scales. Results show that significantly more pain was observed in persons with aphasia during transfer than during rest. No differences were found for observed pain between persons with aphasia who use pain medication and those without, or persons who have joint diseases compared to those without. Results showed acceptable internal consistency. Intra- and interobserver agreement was high for most PAIC15 items, particularly for the domains body movements and vocalizations during rest and transfer.

conclusionsRecognition of pain in persons aphasia using the PAIC15 showed mixed yet promising results.

Indexed as

AphasiaPain MeasurementAgedAged, 80 and overCognitive DysfunctionFacial ExpressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportAphasiaPain observation instrumentPain scalesSelf-report pain

Identifiers

PMID39237887
PMCPMC11375870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.