ReviewFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2024
Evaluating pain in non-verbal critical care patients: a narrative review of the critical care pain observation tool and Its clinical applications.
Review in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning to Unveil: Tackling Implicit Bias in Pain Recognition Through Education.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Radar-Based Assessment of Sit-to-Stand Transitions as Digital Biomarkers of Pain and Physical Decline.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Patients With Pain Consulting Physiotherapists (PHYSIODOL Survey). A Nationwide Survey in France.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
- Digital Approaches to Pain Assessment Across Older Adults: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Rethinking Pain Assessment: Subjective Scales, Biomarkers, and Multimodal Integration.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Objective monitoring of acute pain and nociception in anaesthesia and intensive care: evidence and applications.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2025Review
- Severity and factors associated with pain in patients on mechanical ventilators in Amhara region, North-West Ethiopia: a multi-center prospective observational study.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Comparative Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS) for Pain Assessment in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Assessing pain in critically ill patients who cannot communicate verbally poses significant challenges. Traditional self-report measures are ineffective for these patients, making the need for reliable observational tools crucial. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness, reliability, and clinical applicability of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in various intensive care unit (ICU) settings and to explore potential innovations for improving its use and integration into clinical practice. Methods: A narrative review evaluated the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) for non-communicative ICU patients, comparing it to the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and the FLACC scale. The review assessed CPOT's effectiveness across different ICU settings, identified limitations and challenges, and explored potential enhancements such as electronic scoring, additional physiological indicators, and improved training protocols. Results: The CPOT has been validated as an effective pain assessment tool for non-verbal ICU patients. It evaluates pain through facial expressions, body movements, muscle tension, and ventilator compliance. The CPOT shows superior sensitivity at 76.5% compared to 62.7% for the BPS and offers a more comprehensive assessment of pain indicators like muscle tension and ventilator compliance than the FLACC scale. Despite its strengths, the CPOT has limitations, including inter-rater variability and challenges in certain patient populations. Barriers to implementation include resource constraints and the need for extensive training. Conclusion: The Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) is a highly effective instrument for assessing pain in non-verbal ICU patients, demonstrating superior accuracy and reliability compared to other tools like the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and FLACC scale. Its detailed approach, covering facial expressions, body movements, muscle tension, and ventilator compliance, offers a detailed measure of pain. However, challenges such as inter-rater variability and limitations in specific patient populations highlight the need for ongoing refinement and research.
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.