ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Reliability of Three Pain Assessment Tools in Children Requiring Dental Treatment: A Comparative Clinical Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. 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.
- Mucoadhesive patch versus benzocaine gel for reducing injection pain: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Trial
- Effectiveness of Vanilla Aromatherapy and Orange Aromatherapy on Pain and Anxiety in Children Under Dental Procedures, Randomized Clinical Trial.SAGE open nursingArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate pain assessment in pediatric dental patients is crucial for effective pain management and treatment planning. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 children aged 6-12 years, requiring dental treatment, were enrolled in this study. Each child was assessed using the three pain scales after undergoing a standardized dental procedure. The assessments were performed by two independent evaluators to determine inter-rater reliability. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the reliability of each tool. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and repeated measures ANOVA to compare the mean pain scores across the three scales. Results: The mean pain scores reported were 4.3 ± 1.2 for the VAS, 4.5 ± 1.4 for the FPS-R, and 4.2 ± 1.3 for the WBFPRS. The ICC values for inter-rater reliability were 0.88 for the VAS, 0.86 for the FPS-R, and 0.90 for the WBFPRS, indicating high reliability for all tools. However, the WBFPRS showed slightly higher reliability compared to the other scales. No significant differences were found in pain scores across the three tools ( Conclusion: All three pain assessment tools demonstrated high reliability in assessing pain in pediatric dental patients. The Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale showed the highest inter-rater reliability, suggesting it may be the most reliable tool for clinical use in this population.
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.